But I wanted to say something about the verdict watch!! And I really wanted to get everyone’s opinions:

What do you think the verdict will be?

How long do you think the jury will be out??

I am leaning towards guilty – First degree murder under the theory of Felony Murder (no premeditation), and I’m thinking the jury will be out until Thursday – only because I won’t be here Thursday – Paul has an appointment for a bone scan in Burlington.

And I do have one observation from the closing arguments. Ashton was talking about the chloroform levels in the trunk – and how the levels were “shockingly high”. And they were shockingly high even after George and Cindy aired the car out for hours and hours, and even after the car sat in the forensics bay, and Ashton speculated bout “Gee – how high would those levels have been as the car sat at Johnson’s Towing Yard?”

Which is a good questions. How high would they have been?

Because, if you remember correctly, George aid that there was active maggot activity in the trash bag. He spoke about the “crackling” sound the maggots made when the bag was lifted out of the trunk and Simon Birch said “There’s your smell…”

Which would mean that the flies – even in that chloroform saturated trunk – the one with the levels so high that even after being aired out for several days the levels were “shockingly high”– could complete their life cycles.

Which is impossible.

I’m not an entomologist – so I asked some of the fine folks in AFCA (the smartest people in the world) about this. And I got replies that assured me that fly’s are affected by chloroform, in fact entomologists use chloroform to kill insects.

Oh yeah.  We used special jars from Fisher Scientific, they had a
container of chloroform inside to snuff bugs. Like a tiny gas chamber,
with a cotton ball bed for them to lie down on and take their last tiny
breaths. Of course, it was 100% chloroform fumes in there. Yes, kids
could order chloroform by mail back then. And cyanide, there were
cyanide jars also, now that I think about it. Probably needed an adult
signature:

Parent’s signature if underage ——->  “Denny’s Mom”

Arty also sent me this link:

Chloroform can cause increase in water loss for insects, possibly by
removing a protective waxy layer

Arty’s Link – http://jeb.biologists.org/content/33/1/107.full.pdf

So – its a puzzlement. I think if Baez was a better lawyer, he would have questioned how the trunk could have been filled with chloroform, yet allow the insects to complete their life cycles – or at least asked the entomologists what they thought about that. I mean maybe ti’s nothing. Maybe there was in no way enough chloroform in the trunk to affect incects. But – if I’m speculating aobut it, I’d hate to think any of the jurors were. I don’t like juries that speculate and have unanswered questions.
And that’s why I am so far behind in posting testimony. I get lost in these tangents because I can’t let shit go and I have to research everything.

Finally the defense calls their first witness of the day. They call Joe Jordan. He is employed by a dental supply company. In 2008 he volunteered with Texas EquuSearch. This was the first time he had ever volunteered. He was a team leader – someone who directs the search when you are out on the search. He had between 10 – 30 people on his team. He searched the Suburban Drive area as part of one of his daily assignments.

Cheney Mason shows the witness the familiar aerial photograph of the area. He has the witness mark on the photo the approximate location of where he searched. He and 4 or 5 members of his team went up Suburban Drive and searched in a wooded area that had a trail or opening accessible from the roadway. They went approximately 5 feet into the woods. There was standing water. They saw a pink baby blanket and a red cooler in the area they searched. He marked this on his Field Activity Report and turned it over to Texas Equusearch.

Later that day he had two dog handlers from another team bring their dogs up that way to check the baby blanket and red cooler.

Mason then gets out a tape measure and opens it out on the floor. He doesn’t get anywhere with that.

The witness doesn’t recall how many times he went out to this area. Mason asks if he remembers the third time he went out there, the witness says he doesn’t even know if there was a third time.

The witness sent an email on December 13th 2008 to Yuri Melich and John Allen. He doesn’t remember what was in the email. Mason shows it to him. After reading the email he testifies that he told the detectives that he had searched in the area where Caylee’s remains were ultimately located. And he told them that he had two qualified dogs in that location, and that he believed the remains were moved. The witness says that there were at least 5people searching that area. Mason tries to inflate the number – but the witness says 5. Mason refers to his taped interview with the police. Mason asks the witness if he remembers saying 100 people turned out. The witness says he doesn’t remember saying that. The witness says there were 5 people with him when he walked the wooded area along Suburban Drive. The witness says he has no knowledge about what was done in response to his email.

Mason is done. Burdick Crosses. The witness volunteered in late August and early September. Before he volunteered he had already begun emailing members of the OCSD – he sent suggestions to John Allen and Yuri Melich suggesting people they should look at, in order to assist with the search for Caylee Anthony. The witness agrees. And that was his goal – to help find Caylee – because he believed she was missing and deserved to be found.

Texas Equusearch required that he keep records. Especially as a team leader he had to submit paperwork that outlined who he searched with, where he searched and the results of their search. They were given maps with areas to search. And there is space on the paperwork for any notes on things that might need to be followed up on. And at the end of the day he had to be debriefed by Texas Equusearch.

Burdick shows the witness his original Field Teamwork Activity paperwork fro Equusearch for September 1st, 2008. He noted on this paperwork that there was standing water and that the area should be researched when the water receded.

Burdick shows him the second page of his 5 page EquuSearch report. It showsthe area on Suburban Drive with the areas the witness searched highlighted in yellow.

The witness testifies that when he emailed Detectives Allen and Melich on December 13th, 2008, he didn’t know where Caylee’s body was found – it was just speculation. He saw on TV that they were on Suburban Drive and he knew that he was “in the area.”

Mason re-directs. Mason asks if the TV coverage with the tents and crime scene tape was in the area he searched. The witness says he thought it was at the time.

Then Mason asks him if he was threatened with felony prosecution in this case – and the guy starts taking the 5th. (I think this has to do with his “wiretapping Well, I guess we’ll see – they are at sidebar…and out goes the jury. And Mr. Jordan.

 
Burdick argues to the judge that Mason’s questions were designed to incite the witness to invoke, because the same questions in his deposition elicited the same response. This is improper. And she objects.

 
Mason says that this line of questioning is not the line of questioning that he had asked in the deposition which elicited the invocation. Mason then reads from the deposition where the witness says something like “”You guys will go after me…” when Detective Allen tells the witness “You already broke one law don’t break another….” When Allen tells him to not destroy the tape. (I’m not quite convinced that this shows the witness was threatened with Felony Prosecution…)

Mason says the witness was given immunity, so he is not under the threat of prosecution, and Mason thinks he has the right to question the witness about his motivations and bias, keeping his immunity, etc. Mason says he didn’t want him to take the fifth, and that Mason avoided it in Direct, but the witness doesn’t get to sit here and alter his testimony, and say “As long as you guys don’t go after me, I’m OK.” This goes to his credibility. And once the state gave him immunity – he doesn’t have the right to claim the fifth anymore.

Burdick adds that Mason wasn’t demonstrating that there has been a change in the witness’s testimony since his statement of November 5th, 2009; the objection had to do with him eliciting an invocation of one’s 5th amendment rights. Which Mr. Mason knew was going to elicit the 5th Amendment invocation, and had said to Burdick before the questioning that he wasn’t going to ask the witness about the illegally recorded conversations so he wouldn’t elicit the response he got.

Mason says he was questioning the witness’s statement to law enforcement in the email of December that said that he thought the body was moved. My. Churchill showed him exactly where the body was found. Now today he says he was east of that area. That’s a conflict.
The judge, as is usual, cites case law, and asks about the witness’s crime (unlawful interception), the statute of limitations (three years), his use immunity (not blanket immunity) and what that applied to (his statement, not his testimony), and the judge says that this is fair game (but usually for cross examination, not direct, remember this is Mason’s own witness he wants to impeach, not the state’s…)

The judge asks counsel where in the deposition the witness invoked his Fifth Amendment right. The judge reviews it, and then says that the question asked of the witness was “Were you, sir, threatened with felony prosecution in this case.” That question, in and of itself, doesn’t necessarily elicit the response that Mr. Jordan gave, he could have simply answered yes or no. But Mr. Jordan, not being skilled, simply had a knee jerk reaction and said the first thing that came to his mind, which was to invoke.

The witness’s attorney is in the gallery. The judge asks him if his client was given use immunity – the attorney replies yes, for his statement, not his testimony.

The judge rules that he will tell the jury to disregard the witness’s last statement regarding his Fifth Amendment right. The defense can inquire about receiving use immunity, but the defense cannot inquire about the witness’s actions that caused the use immunity to be given, because he doesn’t have immunity for his testimony, and if the defense inquires about his illegal acts, then that would require the witness to invoke his Fifth Amendment right.

When the jury comes back, the judge tells the jury that the last two questions (the ones about the threatened charges) have been withdrawn, and that the jury is to disregard the questions and the answers.
Then the witness is excused. And the defense calls George Anthony.
Baez asks George is he knows a woman by the name of Krystal Holloway. George says he knows her by that name and another name. He also knows her as River Cruz. She went to the command center in October 2008. George says he knows her as a volunteer and considered her a friend and as someone who was helping to find his granddaughter by working at the command center. She was just another volunteer, no different. Some of the volunteers ended up being friends. Baez asks if George had a romantic relationship with her, and George denies this. George says that this question, to him, is “very funny”. Baez asks if George was ever intimate with her and George says no – and this is also “very funny”.

George also denies borrowing money from her. He does admit going to her house two – possibly three, times. George says that the first time he went to her condo (it’s a gated community, one has to show ID for entrance) he went after she told him that she had a brain tumor and was dying. She needed someone to comfort her, and George, being the good guy he is, felt that since she was giving of herself to himself and his family, that the least he could do was go and comfort her and show her compassion and respect. (You know, it’s odd how many mistresses are “sick” or “dying”, isn’t it??) This was during the day – he never went there at night. Baez asks if he was supposed to be working during the time he went to see her, and there is a sidebar.
After the sidebar, Baez asks the questions again – was George supposed to be working at the time he went to see Miss Holloway. George says he had a new employer and didn’t have a set work schedule. His employer was lenient with hours.

Baez asks again – so is it George’s testimony that he wasn’t going to this woman’s apartment for romantic reason – just to console her because of her brain tumor. And George says yes, he was just going there as a friend to console her. She had confided in him that she had a brain tumor, a fact she also shared with Cindy. Baez asks “Did your wife go to her apartment, too?” No, Cindy didn’t go – just George. But Cindy knew he was there – he had nothing to hide.

Baez asks if George, prior to Caylee’s remains being found, told Krystal Holloway that Caylee’s death was “an accident that snowballed out of control.” George clarifies one thing first – he tells Baez that “to this day, I haven’t found my granddaughter, I never found my granddaughter, and I never confided in any volunteers.” George says that he was handling everything on his own, with his wife and with his son, and this was a private matter for them. The only people he spoke to about his granddaughter or his daughter was Law Enforcement and attorneys.

Baez asks if George ever sent her a text message that said “I need you in my life”. George says that he’s seen this information come out, and he says yes, he’s sent many text messages to many volunteers, and yes, he did need those people in his life, Baez asks if he ever left her letters saying that he wanted to speak to her. George says that on one occasion he went by her residence and he may have left her a letter, it’s possible, but he doesn’t remember the contents of it. Probably it was something to cheer her up.

Baez asks the witness if he ever told Miss Holloway not to say anything about their affair. George says he never had a romantic affair with her. George says, if he’s not mistaken, she has a questionable past. She’s been arrested for fraud, breaking and entering; she’s not a very good person. Baez asks if George knows that she never did say anything about their affair until the police came to her.

Baez asks how many times George spoke to Miss Holloway on the phone from October 2008 to January 2009. George says he doesn’t know it could have been once; it could have been 10 times. Baez asks if he ever spoke to her late at night. George says he doesn’t remember doing so. Baez is through.

Cross by Ashton. He asks when George knew this person. George says he met her in the second or third week of October 2008, at the command center. After Caylee’s remains were found, their friendship ended. Did you ever tell “River Cruz” that while your daughter was home on bond, you grabbed her by the throat, threw her up against the wall and said “I know you did something to Caylee, where’s Caylee?” George says no, he never told her that. Ashton is through.

George is excused. Defense calls Cindy Anthony.

Baez asks her if she directed James Hoover and Dominic Casey to go and search off of Suburban Drive. And she never asked them to video tape the area. On December 20th 2008, there was a search warrant served on her home. Baez asks if she told Melich on that day that she “had her people walk that area and there was nobody there.” Cindy says she can’t remember what she told Melich that day – if anything. Cindy says they were just upset that they were back during that time frame. Cindy does remember telling him that there was a blanket missing. Cindy says that in their first search of December 11th that they did not leave a search warrant or an inventory sheet of what they took. Their lawyer got a copy of the search warrant and the inventory sheet. There were 70 plus items taken in the first search. Baez asks if she knew that they were looking for Winnie the Pooh bedding, and she says that with so many items on the list, no one thing stood out as something they were “looking for”. She remembers something about a sticker.

Baez asks if, prior to September 2008, if she ever told Lee that she had sent Dominic Casey and Jim Hoover to Suburban Drive to look for Caylee with a video camera. Cindy says she never told anyone that she sent them there – because she didn’t send them there. Baez asks if she and Lee had an argument in November 2008 about her sending Dominic Casey and Hoover to that area. Cindy says she had no knowledge of the search in that area, so she couldn’t have had an argument about it. She says her first knowledge of that search in that area was after Caylee’s remains were found. Baez says “So Lee never confronted you about ‘why are you searching for a dead Caylee’?” She says no.

No further questions. Cindy is excused. The defense calls Lee Anthony.

Baez asks Lee if he ever had an argument with his mother about sending Dominic Casey and James Hoover out to Suburban Drive to look for Caylee with a video camera. Lee says he did. He says that he was over at his mother’s house and Cindy told him that she had sent Dominic into the woods off of Suburban Drive because she had gotten a psychic tip that she wanted to follow up on. This was prior to October 2008. This created an argument between the two of them. It was the first time that Lee had ever heard anyone in his family say that they were looking for a deceased Caylee. So Lee was quite angry.

Cross by Mr. George. Lee knows that this conversation happened in October – this incident, in part, fueled his decision to go back to work. He is also aware that Dominic Casey went into the woods with the video camera in November. So, yes, this conversation must have taken place before Dominic actually went into the woods.

Re-Direct by Baez – Baez asks what Lee means about “fueled his decision to go back to work?” Lee explains that he was angry that his parents, his mother specifically, had decided to do that without keeping him in the loop. He was upset that they were willing to say that Caylee was dead and to look for her that way. He wanted nothing to do with that – so he went back to work.

Mr. George re-crosses. He says to Lee “So as of October 2008, you were completely sold on the lies your sister was telling you.” (Lee is smiling at this, which is really odd…) But he says “yes and no.”
Lee is excused. The defense calls Yuri Melich again.

Baez asks Melich about the December 20th, 2008 search warrant that was executed on the Anthony home. Baez asks if Melich remembers Cindy Anthony telling Melich that day that she had had her people walk that are (meaning the area where Caylee was found), a month ago and nothing was in that area. Melich recalls her saying something to that effect. He looks at his report from that day to remember exactly what was said. That’s what she said. Yup. He is excused.

The defense calls Roy Kronk. Good God. And Mason is questioning him. Double Good God.

In the summer of 2008 Roy Kronk was a water meter reader for Orange County. He had only been employed there since May 27th, 2008. At the end of each day, the meter readers would receive their route assignments for the next day. They did not have set routes. On August 11th, 2008 he got the route to read the meters on Hopespring and Suburban Drives. At the time he was alone. Later in the afternoon he was joined by two of his co-workers, David Dean and Chris someone. He remembers August 11th, 2008, because he found a dead rattlesnake. He stopped his vehicle on Suburban Drive to relieve himself and went into the woods. This is something he did when he needed to go pee. (Mason asks where the nearest gas station was – it was at the end of the road.) Prior to this day he was aware of the saga of Caylee Anthony. His roommate was watching the news coverage. They talked about it occasionally. At that time he wasn’t aware of where the Anthony’s home was in relation to where he was. He went into the woods, relieved himself, and came straight out. He did look around a bit and he saw an object that appeared a little odd. He didn’t see a bag. He didn’t lift a bag. He was 20 or 30 feet away and saw what he thought looked like a skull. He didn’t say anything to anyone – they found the dead rattlesnake, and that pretty much took up the rest of the afternoon.

He told Dean that he saw something that looked like a skull, but Dean and Chris were completely enthralled with the dead rattlesnake that they found. They went back to work and showed everyone the rattlesnake and took pictures.

He called the OCSD to tell them that he might have found a skull. He spoke to someone and they told him that they weren’t handling those phone calls and he needed to call the Crimeline. So he called the Crimeline and reported what he thought he might have seen. He told them he saw an object that looked like a skull. He didn’t say it was in the vicinity of the Anthony residence. No one responded to his call that day.

On August 13th, he called the Sheriff’s Department again. Two officers met him on Suburban Drive. Kronk pointed out the area where he had seen the maybe skull.

Mason runs through this situation with Kronk again – to try and ramp it up. He says to the witness :”So you called 9-1-1…” and the witness says “I never called 9-1-1”. Mason says “Would you like me to show you your transcribed 9-1-1 call” and the witness says “Sir, I live in Osceola County – I called Orange County. I never dialed 9-1-1.” Mason gets the witness’s transcribed call, and as he is showing it to opposing counsel, Burdick points out to Mason that the witness dialed the non-emergency number for Orange County. Mason gets all huffy again and says “OK, council is pointing this out to me – sir, did you call the non-emergency number of Orange County…” But he’s having a real hard time ramping up the gravity of the story when he is forced to say “non-emergency number” rather than the more urgent and ominous “9-1-1”.

So Mason reads from the “non-emergency” transcript and repeats everything Kronk told them – he’s a meter reader, he had a route that day that included the Anthony home. (he says he found that out later in the day – when he first took the route, he didn’t know where their home was…), that he was by the school, came back and by the left hand side coming back he saw a gray bag and he saw something white, he also told them “I don’t know what it is, I’m not telling you it’s Caylee or nothing…” He said that there were two openings you could go into, and a big log or tree laying down and there was a gray bag behind the log. He also said that he saw something white a little further up.
Kronk says he was never closer than 30 feet to the area, and he described as best he could what he saw that day.

The next time he called the Sheriff’s, the description got more specific. The tree looked like it had cut marks on it, the bag was vinyl and there was a white board laying across the fallen tree.
Mason asks if he drew a map for the officers on December 17th, 2008. He says he did. The map included the privacy fence line and Hopespring Drive. Mason shows the witness the map the witness drew. The witness doesn’t know how far from the edge of the road the skull would have been that he thought he saw.

On August 13th, 2008, when the two deputies met him on Suburban Drive, the deputies never went into the woods and Kronk never showed them the location of what he had seen. .He didn’t smell anything peculiar on either day. He didn’t lift a bag or touch anything.

Mason asks if the witness told Deputy Richard Cain that he saw a bag that looked like it had bones in it. The witness says no.

The ground on August 11th, 2008 was dry.

Mason asks if the witness knew there was a reward for finding Caylee when he went into the woods on August 11th, 2008. He says he thinks he knew that. Mason asks if the witness knew that right around the corner was a congregation of media trucks. The witness says he was aware of that. Mason asks if he went over there and told the media that he thought he just saw a skull and a bag of bones. The witness says “I never said I found a bag of bones, sir.” Masons asks if the witness told anyone that he found a skull. The witness says “I never said I found a skull. I said I found something that appeared to look like that. Masons asks if the witness told anyone that he found what appeared to look like a skull.” Kronk says he told his roommate. Mason says “But you never told the media that was right around the corner.” Kronk says no.

Mason asks if the bag he saw in August 2008 was the dame bag he saw In December of 2008. Kronk says he wouldn’t know. Mason asks if he thinks it was the same bag. Kronk says he wouldn’t know. Mason asks if he remembers his deposition. In it he said it was the same bag,. Kronk says that he was told it was the same bag. (Huh?)

Kronk says that in August he tried to point it out to his co-workers. But once they saw the dead snake, they were done. That’s all they could think about.

Mason asks the witness if he advised the operator on August 12th, 2008 that he had seen a skull. Kronk says he didn’t. The defense then enters into evidence the three taped conversations of call Kronk made to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department about what he found. The judge reads the stipulations that these are true and accurate recordings of the calls.

Aug-11-12-13-2008-911-calls-by-Roy-Kronk

Mason asks the witness what he did after he made the call the first day. Kronk says nothing. He made that call at 9:30 at night. He did nothing afterwards.

On the next day, the 12th, after he made that call, he did nothing. Watched some TV went to bed.

Mason asks if he remembers what he said in his statement to Yuri Melich regarding what he did after he made those calls. The statement was in January 2009.

In the calls to 911 he said he was on “the Anthony’s street” – so he knew where they lived. Kronk says yeah, at the end of the day he knew – not at the beginning. Mr. Dean had said that the area on Suburban would be a good place to look for the body. Kronk had already thought that to himself, as well.

On the 13th, when the officers came out there was an Officer Cain and a female officer. Kronk watched Deputy Cain go into the woods. Kronk says he walked to the waterline, looked to the left, looked to the right, came back up the embankment, slipped in the mud and bitched out Kronk for a half an hour.

Mason asks if Kronk told the officers that he was 100% sure it was a skull. Kronk says yes, he told them that, but he didn’t know if it was a prop, or a ceramic skull or some plastic thing. He didn’t know if it was an actual skull skull.

After the three calls he never went to the area again with the authorities, and he wasn’t involved with the investigation in any way. In January he went on the Good Morning America Show. He was paid $15,000 for a picture of the snake (which is how these shows get around “paying” people for interviews…) He got paid $5,000 from Crimeline. Orange County paid for his lawyer until Kronk was terminated, then they stopped paying for the lawyer.

Kronk has a son named Brandon Sparks. Mason asks if her ever called his son in November and told him “I will soon be famous”. Kronk says that never happened.

Between August and December Kronk was in the area several times for his route, but he never again went into the wooded area. Until December 11th, 2008. No law enforcement officer ever inspected his vehicle. No cadaver dogs were ever deployed on his vehicle. He was never asked for DNA samples. He doesn’t know if there was an investigation of him.

On December 11th, 2008 he was again on his route. He didn’t get as far as the Anthony’s. He went into the wooded area. This is when he actually found the remains. He doesn’t know if they were in the same place, because he never actually went up to the bag before. In August it was flooded, it wasn’t in December. Between August and December he never called Law Enforcement to see what was happening with his report of finding a skull.

He says that he picked up the skull this time with a stick. He was behind it and still didn’t believe it was a skull, so he kind of pivoted the skull with the end of a stick and then put it back. Kronk says this was a horrific thing for him to find.

He then called his area supervisor. He said he needed him there immediately, that he had found a skull. Mason asks if Kronk asked the female officer who responded if he would be eligible for the reward. And he’d like to keep it quiet so his ex-wife didn’t find out about the money. Kronk says he doesn’t remember. Kronk says he probably asked why they didn’t do anything about his call in August.

He jokingly talked to his supervisor Alex Roberts about the reward – and probably joked with him about his ex-wife finding out. He doesn’t remember if they said “he won the lotto” or if “he should play the lotto.” They also talked about how it was a good place to dump a body.
Kronk denies making a phone call to his son at all in November about this case and finding the body. Kronk says he called his son on December 11th, 2008 and told him he found something that day and if he looked on TV he could probably see him for the first time since he was 8 years old.

Mason asks if Kronk also talked to a Kethlin Cutcher from the Sheriff’s Department. Kronk doesn’t recognize the name.

Kronk says he talked to his son maybe 12 -15 times from August to December. He would call his son and his son would call him. Kronk doesn’t believe he ever told his son he was going to be famous – or rich. Kronk says “Not Really.” Kronk says he never told the detectives that he needed money. He says he never made a comment to the detectives of “Roy has to eat too.”

Mason shows Kronk his statement again, Mason points out a statement that he wanted to stay out of the media, but “Roy has to eat too.”
Kronk did make a mistake in his original statement that he later corrected. In his original statement he said that the skull rolled out of the bag when he lifted it. That was wrong. He lifted the bag about 4 feet off the ground. He says that he told Melich about poking the skull with a stick to Melich, he just didn’t write it down.

Mason asks if the witness knows how many statements he has given to Law Enforcement. The witness has no idea. And it wasn’t until his second deposition that he mentioned putting a stick in the skull to move it. Kronk says he thinks he did mention it before – he thinks he even mentioned it in his ABC interview.

Kronk says that none of the police ever told him to not talk about his earlier calls in August reporting that he found something.
Kronk says he has a computer – and he had one in 1998. None of his computer records were confiscated by law enforcement.

December 10th, the day before finding the remains, Kronk was off from work because his car needed repairs. He needed over $1000 to fix his vehicle.

Mason is finally done. Burdick Crosses. She asks Kronk “Do you KNOW Casey Anthony?” Kronk says “No, ma’am” Burdick asks “Do you know Lee Anthony?” Kronk says “No, ma’am” “George Anthony? Cindy Anthony?” “No, ma’am.” She asks if se knows Dominic Casey or Jim Hoover. He says no. Burdick says “You aren’t even from Orlando until recently, are you?” Kronk says no, he isn’t. And he lives in Osceola County, near Kissimmee. He only moved to Florida in August of 2007. He got the job with the water department in May 2008, and since he wasn’t even familiar with the Orlando neighborhoods, he used a GPS to get around.
On August 11th, he finished his route and in the afternoon co-workers met with him on Suburban Drive to drive back to the office. He went to relieve himself in the woods, looked around and saw something he thought was suspicious. He came back out of the woods, and the other guys are there and he says something to them about seeing something. The guys see a dead snake and they screamed like little girls and got all excited about the snake. And that was his last discussion with them about what he saw.

He said that he was “looking down” on something, because the road level is higher than the slope area, and this is where all the water had collected.

Then he goes home this evening, talks with his roommate tells her what he saw , and then at 9:00, when he wouldn’t be disturbing her from watching TV, he makes the call to the non-emergency number of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. He gave them the information and what they did with it was up to them. He had no expectation that at 9:00 at night they were going to ask him to leave his home in another county and drive back to Orlando to show them what he had thought he saw.

Then the next night he called again and gave them the same information. And he also calls Crimeline that night. Again, he had no expectation that they were going to have him leave his home to meet them there.

The next day, on the 13th, he called from the location and asked to have a deputy meet him there, so he can show them where it was and what he saw. Deputy Cain meets with him there. Deputy Cain went down the slope, looked around and then slipped in the mud and then berated Kronk. The female officer stayed up on the road and Kronk was on the grassy area. Because of the way he was treated, he let the matter go.
Mason asked about his needing money in December for car repairs. Burdick asks if he also need money in August, September, October and November. Kronk said yes, he did.

Burdick asks if, besides form his work responsibilities, if he’s ever been near the Anthony home. Kronk says no. Burdick asks if he has ever had access to Casey’s Sunfire. He says no. He’s never had any access to the Anthony garage. When he read their meter in August there was tons of media trucks there. He’s never had access to their computer, or their back yard, or their home, or Caylee’s clothing, or her diapers or her underwear. You’ve had no access to the laundry bags, or their garbage bags, or Caylee’s blankets, and never had access tot heir duct tape.

The witness is excused. The defense calls David Dean. In August 2008 he was an Orange County Meter Reader. He is still in the same job. On August 11th, 2008, he was done his route and he was stopped on Suburban Drive to meet some co-workers. Present were himself, a co-worker he was training at the time and Roy Kronk. He was there because he was asked to get help Roy out, and they were stopped there to rest before they went back into the office. There were two vehicles between the workers. Roy’s was pointed one way, Dean’s the other. He had gone there to assist Roy, so they found out what he had left to do and went to the school to read the master meter there, and check the lift station in front of it. Then they parked in a shady area for a break. They were all aware of the media frenzy at the Anthony home. When they pulled up to the area, Dean had mentioned that he felt the little girl’s body was probably in that swamp somewhere. Then Roy went into the swamp to use the bathroom. When he came out of the swampy area he was looking down in the bushes. When he came out he said he saw a skull down in there. And Dean said “A Skull?” And he decided to go down into the swampy area to see what he had seen. He was heading that way and he almost stepped on a big rattlesnake. It was dead. He found the snake more interesting than the skull. Kronk didn’t try to divert his attention from the snake. When he didn’t try to get their attention back on the skull, Dean figured he was kidding.

When they got back to the office, everyone came to the back of his truck to take pictures of the snake. The topic of the skull never came up. Roy never said he called 911 about the skull.

On December 11th, 2008, Dean heard a call come in on the radio. Mr. Kronk had found a skull. Dean called back on the radio to him “I told you she was in there!”

The snake? Yeah, Dean kept that for a while. He put it in his freezer. The police came and took it from him. They gave the snake an autopsy.
Dean says that Kronk went about 25 feet into the woods that day.
Burdick crosses. She confirms that the witness said twice to Roy Kronk on August 11th that he thought Caylee’s body might be in that swampy area on Suburban Drive. Dean thinks that what he told Kronk was what led Kronk to search in the woods. Burdick asks when the witness told Kronk on December 11th “I told you she was in there!” That this doesn’t mean the witness had anything to do with the case. Dean says “Oh, no, ma’am!” He just thought this would be a good place for a body to be hidden – plus what Casey had said to her mother at one time. About Caylee “being close”.

Dean described the area as “swampy”. It was dry in areas and marshy in areas with lots of cypress trees.

Burdick is Done – Baez re-directs: He asks Dean if Dean was the one that remembered Casey’s statement “she’s close” Dean says he was. Baez asks the witness if he remembers George’s statement that she “was close”. Dean says no. Baez says “that’s because no one was looking at George.”

The witness is excused. The Defense calls Alex Roberts. He is the senior meter reader for Orange County. In August 2008 he was Roy Kronk’s supervisor. On December 11th, 2008, he was supervising Roy Kronk. On December 11th, 2008, his route was in the Anthony family neighborhood. Kronk did not read any meters that day. For all he knew he went straight to the woods. He did not work after his discovery. Roberts had to have someone else cover his shift. When Roberts first saw him, Kronk was smoking a cigarette, leaning against the truck. He was nervous.

He recalls on August 11th when the workers came back with a snake.
The witness is excused. The defense calls Sgt. Dennis Moonsammy . He is employed by Orange County Corrections. He is currently the supervisor of the women’s detention center. That includes where Casey has been incarcerated since October 2008. Baez asks if Casey has “special status” at the facility, which causes a sidebar and then the jury is excused for the day.

Baez proceeds with the proffer of the witness. He asks the Sgt. what Casey’s status is at the jail. The Sgt. says she is in protective custody. One of the main features of Protective Custody is that these inmates do not go into general population. Because she is in protective custody, she is in her cell for extended periods of time. 23 hours a day. One hour a day she is allowed to take a shower, go to the rec yard, the TV room or get a book from the library in that unit. She has been in protective custody for the last 3 years.

The Sgt. says she is a model inmate. The Sgt. says that it is part of his duty to go to that unit every day. He speaks to every inmate in that unit. He has to engage them and receive a response from them as part of his duties. He records this response on a form called an OP 8. Casey has always been very pleasant, always smiling without hesitation. Never gave anyone ever problems. Even if he has to wake her up – she is never unpleasant. She has been this way since the day she got there. She’s never up or down, she always smiles, she’s always pleasant.

The state has no questions. The judge rules that this witness’s testimony is not relevant. .

The defense has another proffer – this one from Marlene Baker. She is also a Corrections Officer, presently working in Classifications. She used to work in Casey’s unit. She observed Casey for approximately one and a half years. She describes Casey as pleasant. When Baker came in in the morning to do her daily visual inspection Casey was always happy and pleasant. The cell is 6 X 8 and she is in there 23 hours a day. That often causes inmates stress. Especially those facing the death penalty. Casey hasn’t seemed to let this get to her – she is generally happy, smiling and pleasant.

The state has no questions. The judge rules the testimony is not relevant or material.

The defense calls their next proffer witness – Jesse Grund. This is Casey’s former fiancé. Baez asks if he was once engaged to be married to Casey. Grund says yes. He once had a conversation with Casey regarding her brother Lee. This was shortly after Caylee was born. Grund felt uncomfortable around Lee. He was very standoffish. Very strange and quiet and sullen around Grund. And also around Casey and Caylee and Grund wanted to know why this was. Casey didn’t want to have Caylee around Lee. Jesse asked Casey why this was, and Casey said that at one point, in recent years, that she had awoken to find Lee standing over her staring at her. Then, in another incident, she woke up to find him groping her. Jesse says he had absolutely no interest in continuing the conversation. That was all he needed to know. He says at that time that he took whatever Casey said as truth and fact (sucker). If she felt uncomfortable around Lee, then Jesse didn’t want anything more to do with him.

Baez is done. The state has no questions.

The state objects to this witness’s testimony on the basis of hearsay. The defense says it is admissible under the “theory of defense” rule. The judge and both sides are going to go over case law this evening to determine if the testimony is relevant and material to the defense’s case.

Ann Finnell is going to appear via telephone tomorrow morning to argue a death penalty issue.

There is a question regarding proffering the testimony of Dr. Kerioth The state has not deposed her – opposing counsel said that she knew nothing relevant – now they want to call her, but in lieu of a deposition they will proffer. Baez has a fit about the proffer. He says that they made the witness available, Ashton was busy and tired, and didn’t depose her. Baez says that he is sick of trying the case this way. The defense proffers and then the state gets a free preview.

The judge says that this “general grief experience” testimony has been questionable in the past. Jurors know what grief is. And there were no questions in jury selection about death and grieving. The judge says the best thing he can do is listen to the testimony, and there will be tons of sidebars and jurors going in and out. But the judge wants a well constructed hypothetical to pose to the doctor regarding general grief theory.

The defense says they have 6 or so witnesses left. The judge says he will enquire of the witness about her decision whether or not to testify.

The judge immediately reveals that the reason for the abrupt recess the court took on Saturday was because the defense filed a motion questioning Casey’s competency to proceed. Based upon that order the court ordered that the defendant be examined by three psychologists to determine her competency to proceed. The court appointed three independent experts, Dr. Daniel Treshler, Dr. Harry McClaren and Dr. Ryan Hall.

The three experts examined Casey over the weekend and submitted reports to the court with their findings. Based upon the reports of the three experts, the court finds that Casey is competent to continue to proceed. The reports of the psychiatrists are sealed.

The defense and the state have cleared up all matters relating to Dr. Kenneth Furton that they discussed on Saturday.

The defense’s first witness today is a familiar face – Detective Yuri Melich. Baez asks the detective if he misspoke in his testimony on Friday. The Detective agrees that he did. Melich says that in regards to the cell phone records he testified about, specifically the ones regarding Roy Kronk, he subpoenaed the cell phone records only for June 1st, 2008 through July 1st, 2008.

Baez then points out that it wasn’t until August 11th that Roy Kronk first called the police regarding this case. The detective agrees. Baez asks if Roy Kronk’s involvement spanned the months of August through December. Melich says yes. But he only subpoenaed cell phone records for June. Baez points out that if the detective had pulled all those months of cell phone records that it would have been easy to tell if Kronk was in the area of Suburban Drive when he shouldn’t have been. Melich agrees.

Baez asks if there are any other incidents where he misspoke to this jury. Melich says not to his knowledge. Baez says OK – so this is the only time you have misled the jury?

Melich says that Baez is implying that he deliberately misinformed the jury – that was not the case. Baez was asking him questions regarding a three year investigation, there was a lot of cell phone records, a lot of subpoenas, and since Melich doesn’t know what Baez is going to ask him, he can’t prepare. So yes, he did misspeak, but it was not deliberate.

Baez says he’s not implying anything, he is just asking if there was any other information the detective gave that was false. Melich says not that he can recall, but was there anything else he wanted to bring up?

Baez says – “well, now that you bring it up – let’s talk about Mr. Anthony’s cell phone records.” Baez asks if Melich testified that he had George’s cell phone records for June and July. Melich says that he isn’t sure what exactly he testified to – they were talking about cell phone records and home phone records. Melich says that when he left court on Friday, he went back and checked and he did subpoena George Anthony’s cell phone records for June and July of 2008. Baez asks if he has those with him and Melich says no, he doesn’t. Baez asks if those records have Cell Tower locations, and Melich says no, they don’t.

Baez asks if that information would have been useful, and Melich says yeah, if Melich had thought it would play a part in this case, which he didn’t believe was true at the time. Although Melich did subpoena the cell phone records of most of Casey’s friends, ex-boyfriends and acquaintances.

Baez asks the detective if he confiscated the computer of Roy Kronk – Melich didn’t. Yet Melich did confiscate the computer of a woman named Joy Wray. – A woman who claimed to have taken photographs of the area on Suburban Drive. She also claimed to be a spy for George Bush. She also had been Baker Acted. Melich says there was a specific reason that he confiscated Ms. Wray’s computer. Melich also confiscated Ricardo Morales’s computer – and that’s how it was learned that he was selling photographs to the Globe.

On December 13th, 2008, two days after the remains were discovered; Melich received an email from Joe Jordan. Baez says that this email was not turned over to the prosecution or the defense for over a year and a half. Melich asks if he can see the email in question.

Once he reads the email, Baez asks if it’s true that Melich only turned this email over to the prosecution and the defense after Baez found Mr. Jordan. Melich says he doesn’t remember when the email was turned over.

Baez then asks Melich about the two search warrants that were served on the Anthony home in December. In the first search, they confiscated items relating to the Winnie the Pooh blanket. Baez also asks if he left a list of the items confiscated and a copy of the search warrant at the home. Melich says he left these items.

Baez asks if Melich spoke with the Anthony’s – and if he told them any information that had not yet become public. Melich says it is not unusual for him to disclose information to victims in a case. Baez asks if he told the Anthony’s anything about the items that were found on Suburban drive. Melich says he can’t recall specifically if he talked with the Anthony’s or what he might have told them.

Melich says he did not employ a cadaver dog on the other two vehicles at the Anthony home. Baez asks if the issue ever came up that Casey might have driven Cindy’s car at one point. Melich says he remembers that coming up in the course of the investigation. George informed him of that. But the detectives did not find any evidence to confirm that this happened – or was not true of the pertinent time frame that he may have thought it occurred.

Melich says he never deployed a cadaver dog inside the Anthony home.

Baez then shows an enlarged aerial photo of the general area of the Anthony home and has Melich point out both the Anthony home and the site where the remains were found.

Baez then has Melich confirm that Casey was arrested on July 16th, 2008. And that she was out on bond for a short period from August to October. She was subject to electronic monitoring during that time. There were throughout that period of time 5 – 10 media trucks outside of her home. Wherever she went the media followed. Since the indictment of October, 2008, Casey has been in jail.

Baez is done. Burdick crosses. She asks about the email from Joe Jordan. Melich received this email 24-36 hours after the remains were found. They were busy with that, and were, at that time, receiving hundreds of tip a day.

Burdick asks if the cars of George or Cindy Anthony ever smelled like they had a dead body in them. Melich says no.

Burdick asks about the cell phone records he had subpoenaed. The ones from Casey’s friends, boyfriends and ex-boyfriends. She has the witness testify that the focus of these records were the June-July 2008 time period. Casey’s own phone records were initially subpoenaed only for this time period as well – the period of June 1st through July 15th. This was the critical time period when Caylee was missing and the detectives were focusing on finding out where Casey had been and where Caylee could be found.

Casey’s phone records also were subpoenaed to follow up on the information that Casey had originally gave them regarding the babysitter who had stolen her daughter – information that later proved to be false. Anyone Casey had talked to during this time period was also followed up on in an effort to locate Zenaida Gonzalez and some of the other names that Casey had given as contacts of Zenaida’s – Juliette Lewis, Raquel Ferrell, Jeffrey Hopkins, all eventually discovered to be imaginary people.

Baez re-directs – Baez asks Melich if Joe Jordan had given Melich information before. Melich says that it was all through email, Melich doesn’t think they had met face to face. Melich says that Mr. Jordan was one of the many people trying to help out, tell the police where to look, how to do their jobs, give the police information. Baez says – “But you actually took some of his information and used it, right?” Melich says he doesn’t remember what information he took from Mr. Jordan. Baez asks if Melich remembers Mr. Jordan directing Melich to blogs posted by Cindy Anthony’s brother. Melich says that someone told him about blogs – he doesn’t remember if it was Mr. Jordan or someone else.

Baez asks Melich if he was actually present when Deputy Forgey went through Casey’s car with the cadaver car. Melich says he thinks he was. Baez shows Melich a drawing that Melich had made earlier depicting the forensics bay, the Sunfire, and a second car. Melich testifies that Forgey only had his car inspect one car. Forgey had testified that he led the car through other cars in the parking lot first.

The detective is excused. The defense calls Detective Michael Vincent. Baez shows him a drawing that he did earlier (similar to the one Melich had drawn.) He, too, testifies that Forgey only deployed his cadaver dog on one car in the parking lot. And Baez is done with Vincent. The state has no questions.

The witness is excused. The defense’s next witness is Gerardo Bloise. Oh my fucking God. It’s another drawing that Bloise drew in an earlier hearing in March 2011. It’s the same forensics bay drawing. Bloise testifies that Forgey only deployed his dog on only one car in the parking lot. Baez has no other questions.

Burdick asks if the witness’s focus that day was the white Sunfire. Bloise says yes. This is what he was paying attention to and documenting.

Baez asks if, in his job as a detective, his job is to focus on the details- the minute details. Bloise says yes.

The witness is excused. The defense’s next witness is Deputy Jason Forgey (you had to expect this…) Like it really matters how many cars he deployed the dog on before the dog hit on the Sunfire. Good Lord. Even if the guy says “Oh, I was wrong, I didn’t send the dog around any other cars- just the Sunfire. Does that make the “hit” less valid??

Baez shows Forgey another drawing. One that Forgery drew in March 2011. Of the forensic bay. He drew the two cars that he deployed Garus on. He didn’t know whose car the other one was. He says there were witnesses to this incident. He says Bloise, Vincent and his supervisor were there. They would all corroborate that he deployed his dog on two cars. Baez asks if he deploys the dog on another car so that the dog doesn’t false alert. Forgey says that’s what they do in training; this was a real world scenario. In real world scenarios you don’t always have two vehicles. He only deployed the dog on two vehicles because the other vehicle happened to be there.

Burdick crosses. She says regardless if there were one car, 100 cars or 2 cars, Forgey still knew that the white Sunfire was the car in question, correct? Forgey agrees.

The witness is excused. The defense’s next witness is Dr. Kenneth Furton. He is a Chemistry Professor. He has a PhD in Analytical Chemistry. He focused on chemical mixtures. And the compounds emitted by forensic specimens. Since 2003 he has studied the volatile chemical given off by live humans as well as dead bodies. He has government grants to study human scent (Your tax dollars at work.) He has never testified as an expert witness in human decomposition. He has testified as an expert witness in Analytical Chemistry. He has a patent on some device that identifies human based on the volatile chemicals they emit.

Baez offers him as an expert in human decomposition and analytical chemistry. Ashton has no objection to the chemistry part, but wants to voir dire the witness with regards to the human decomposition part.

The witness testifies to Ashton that his research has been from the perspective of cadaver dogs – studying what they alert to. Ashton also says “And by your research – we actually mean your students research.” Furton says yes, but it’s under his direction. Ashton also asks the doctor if, up until recently, the doctor didn’t work with whole human cadavers, but with training aids used by cadaver dogs. The witness agrees. He says that one of his students worked with portions of human remains used as training aids by the cadaver dogs and one student used whole human cadavers. Ashton asks if, other than the research of one student with training aids and the research of one student with whole human cadavers, if the doctor has any other expertise in human decomposition. Ashton says human decomposition is a very broad subject matter. Ashton says, for instance, do you have expertise in stages of human decomposition, bloat versus ….you know, that area?

The doctor says only as it relates to volatile organic compounds that might be emitted at each stage.

Ashton tells the judge that he has no objection to the witness being accepted as an expert in the very limited area of organic compounds as they relate to human decomposition – but not the entire field of human decomposition.

Baez says that’s fine – they are not going into any areas outside of the odor analysis of decomposition.

Baez asks the doctor what items he received and reviewed in this case. He received all the records related to the investigation, including the autopsy report, the photos of the items in the trunk of the car, the expert witness report, and the reports from the Body Farm and the depositions and reports from the expert witnesses. He specifically looked at the work done by the Body Farm. He also reviewed the report by Dr. Sigmon. He also reviewed the studies done by Dr. Vass.

This witness, based on his own research and that of others, thinks that there is no chemically unique signature related to human decomposition to the level that it cold be used to identify the presence or absence of human decomposition based on the chemical residues that are present.

He has a power point presentation.

The Power Point explains the GC/MS machine and explains how it accepts samples and prints out a chromatogram.

Furton then shows a slide which compares the chemical make-up of 10 living individuals – 5 females and 5 males. Furton has a “human bar code” – a listing of the chemicals that these 10 people gave off. There is a unique pattern of chemicals for each person.

Furton then shows a slide that compares the “human bar codes” of 7 living individuals and 6 dead individuals (3 form a mortuary, 3 from a crematorium). This graph shows that dead individuals look a lot more similar than living individuals. Their chemical make up – while not perfectly aligned, contain nearly identical compounds and in the same relative abundance.

Furton then shows a slide he created that lists the 20 most common chemicals found in the deceased samples of individuals. These chemicals were found the most consistently and the most abundantly in all of the deceased individuals.

Furton then shows a slide that shows the chemical compounds found in other decomposing samples, such as canines and meat samples – tuna, chicken, lamp, pork – as well as humans. This study was to identify what chemicals were prevalent in non human decompositional events and compare them to the uniquely human compounds. There is quite a bit of overlap in the chemical signature of human and non-human decompositional events.

This brings us to another demonstrative aid and the magic easel.

Furton has taken the eight major studies (as well as some publications, including the one by Dr. Vass) that have been done on human decomposition and compiled them into one chart, classifying them by the major compounds that each study found to be present in human decomposition. This is an easy snapshot into what compounds they all agree on. Furton has the compounds grouped by classification – ethers and alcohols, acids, hydrocarbons, etc.

The doctor testifies that all of the studies have different methodology – they studied bodies in various stages of decomposition and in varying locations – some buried, some above ground some out in the open, some in vehicles or water. This chart is a compendium of what they found according to their methodology.

Furton has assigned a percentage to each compound – indicating what percentage of the studies and papers agree that a particular chemical is found in their individual study. Furton explains that if most of the percentages were above 50%, that this would indicate scientific agreement. Most of the percentages on the chart fall well below the 50% threshold. Some of them are as low as 25%. There are only 4 chemicals that are above 50%.

Furton is through with the magic easel and re-takes the stand to continue his Power Point presentation. He next shows a slide that has a picture of some of the items that were found in the trash in the trunk of the car.

Baez asks the doctor specifically about the 4 fatty acids reportedly found on the paper towel. Furton explains that these acids are milk lipids that can also be found in cheeses and other dairy products.

The other four chemicals (the solid chemicals) that were testified to be present in human decompositional events – sodium, calcium, magnesium and iron are also chemical s that can be found in milk, Dr. Furton testifies. These chemicals are found in our bodies *because8 we drink milk and other liquids that contain these chemicals.

These chemicals and the 4 fatty acids are not unique to human decomposition. That’s why the science has not developed to the point where we can reliably locate human remains. There are no reliable indicators in the form of chemical emissions.

Baez asks the doctor is the Body Farm did a quantitative or qualitative analysis in their analysis of the materials in this case. Furton says that they did a qualitative analysis. They did not do a quantitative analysis. Furton says that a quantitative analysis is important to know the concentration to rule out other sources of the sample. Chloroform is a very prevalent chemical which is found everywhere. The concentration is very high in certain consumer products such as cleaning solutions and bleach.

The doctor tried to cite the World Health Organization study about the scary levels of chloroform that can be found in household products, but Ashton objects. There are two sidebars, and the jury is sent out for lunch.

Ashton then presents to the judge case law cites regarding expert witnesses using hearsay on which to base their opinions.

The attorneys come back after their lunch break to continue the arguing about Furton’s testimony. Ashton says this is a proffer matter – Baez says it’s a proper line of questioning and he’s not interested in pre-trying his case before the prosecution so that Ashton gets a free look. Baez thinks this is going on far too often.

The judge says he doesn’t need a proffer, but the judge has read the case law Ashton cited and as long as the witness is giving his opinion, that’s fine. But he can’t sit on the stand and regurgitate other studies and reports and cites. The judge says he will trust that this is not what the witness is going to do.

Ashton says that this witness has no independent knowledge of levels of chloroform in household products. The only knowledge he has of this is the study from the World Heath Organization. Ashton says that, as an officer of the court, that the only knowledge he has of these levels is hearsay. And a witness cannot testify on direct examination to the underlying facts that his opinion is based on if those underlying facts are not admissible.

The judge says he is not going to require a proffer, but the doctor cannot testify to underlying facts. If he does, and it comes out on cross examination that his testimony is based on hearsay, then his testimony is subject to being stricken.

Baez argues that every scientist reads textbooks and articles and peer reviewed material and relies on these sources for their opinions. And if the material they base their opinions on is “generally accepted” as a source in the field, that these are not considered hearsay under the rules of evidence. And yes, the doctor relied on the internet, but the internet, too, is an acceptable and customary source that should fall outside hearsay.

The judge says that there are many ways for an expert to gather data for their opinion. One way being, you know, if you are an analytical chemist, to study and research household materials for their chemical compounds and coming up with opinion. But if the basis of the Doctor’s knowledge is purely an internet search, you know any one of us could do that and come back and regurgitate the information. You don’t have to be an expert to do that.

Baez says he will ask the doctor what the basis of his opinion is. And Baez does a short proffer to explore the basis of the witness’s knowledge.

The witness says that the basis of his opinion is general knowledge of the basic properties of volatile chemicals such as chloroform, through his education and experience.

Just before he testified, the doctor researched via the internet to see what other articles and papers might be found on household products and chloroform levels. He googled through Google Scholar so some of the sources were journal articles – some were websites. Baez asks if these articles were such that they are generally accepted by scientists and researchers in forming their opinions. Baez asks if he has been instructed to not use the knowledge he gained in his internet searches when rendering his opinion. The doctor says he has been so instructed.

Ashton asks if the doctor has ever done any research into the levels of chloroform in household products. The doctor says no. Ashton asks if everything he knows about these levels is based on what he has read from various sources. The doctor says yes – well, his experience and knowledge as an analytical chemist – and what he has read in peer reviewed journal articles and government documents.

Ashton says “well if you’ve never done any research on chloroform levels, what do you mean experience – other than reading?” The doctor says “well, in my experience as an analytical chemist – my life is separating, analyzing, identifying and quantifying chemicals and compounds and chloroform is just another compound.” Ashton says he understands that, but his testimony is about levels in common household items – that’s based completely on what you’ve read, not from firsthand knowledge through research or experience.”

Ashton argues to the judge that the witness can offer his opinion, but he can’t regurgitate other’s opinions. He can’t testify regarding what he’s read. He can’t bring up inadmissible testimony and hearsay. Claims that cannot be cross examined.

Baez says that he thought this issue was settled before lunch at the sidebar. This witness is a chemist, he’s an analytical chemist, and he analyzes chemicals. This is the way experts get their opinions and information – through respected and reliable studies and journals and the research of others. The witness is getting his information through valid sources – he’s not saying he heard this at the bowling alley.

The judge rules that the witness can give his opinion. He doesn’t have to state where he gets his information from. If he is cross examined and asked where the opinions come from, he can then state the source of his knowledge.

The jury comes back, the direct continues with the question: “What contains chloroform” The doctor says that the most common place you find chloroform is when chlorine reacts with organic compounds – for instance when bleach interacts with the fragrances that are added to it. You might also see chloroform in butters, oils, cheese, things of that nature. You can also find chloroform in chlorinated water – the chlorine will react with the organic compounds present in water.

Baez asks the witness if, in his opinion, the chemical compounds that Dr. Vass found in this case would indicate the presence of the human decomposition. The Doctor says that these 5 compounds are not unique to human decomposition, two of the compounds, chloroform and carbo-tetrachloride are common compounds found in ordinary cleaning products, and the three methyl-sulfides have been reported in decomposing organic matter, it doesn’t even have to be another animal. It’s been reported in urban trash cans, for instance.

Since these compounds are not unique to human decomposition, they can’t be relied upon to indicate that presence.

Baez is done. Ashton to cross. And Ashton asks the doctor if he examined the spare tire cover in this case. Ashton shows it to him. He says “Do you see any bleach stains on that?” The doctor says “None that are apparent.” Baez says “Judge – there’s a missing part!” The judge says “Overruled”.

Ashton then points out to the doctor that these chemical reactions he’s talking about – like the one with bleach and organic compounds – they don’t happen in a vacuum – they produce other compounds, too. That reaction also produces other compounds besides chloroform. This is where Ashton loses the doctor. The doctor seems unsure about the by-products of mixing chlorine and organic compounds. He is loathe to say that it would create other compounds besides chloroform. Which, you know, is something even I learned in High School Chemistry. And I didn’t pay a lot of attention in Chemistry. Except for “we’re making explosions” days. And dude, you don’t need a PhD in Chemistry to realize that “gee! My eyes are burning! Maybe I shouldn’t have mixed this bleach and this toilet cleaner!” But the doctor says it wasn’t in any peer reviewed articles he read. So, you know, that would need to be researched and published. And now I don’t believe anything he says. Because he’s a dumbass. Idiot.

Ashton asks the doctor “Isn’t chloroform a carcinogen?” The doctor says yes. Ashton then asks “But it’s in butter and cheese?” The doctor says “Yes.” Ashton says “But in the low parts per billion?” The doctor says yes. There is an FDA limit on how much chloroform can be in food products. The doctor doesn’t know the exact limit.

Ashton then brings up the doctor’s power point presentation. He shows him the slide that compares the “human bar code” of living humans to dead individuals. Ashton asks if this chart illustrates that we all smell much more alike when we are dead than when we are alive. Ashton asks if this chart would tend to indicate that there is some validity to the science of identifying the distinct odor of human decomposition. The doctor agrees that it does, but that we haven’t yet found the entire set of unique compounds that constitute human decomposition. Ashton then shows him the next slide – and says “OK, so your student completed this study just this year, right” And the doctor is quick to point out that the student completed the study under his direction.” Ashton says “Yeah, but the student is the one who actually went to the morgue and got the samples and analyzed them” The doctor admits that’s true.

Ashton asks the doctor about the collection method that was used in this study. The student went to the morgue and used a “Scent Transfer Unit” (which looks like a dustbuster). This is a device used by law enforcement to collect living human scent. The doctor is expanding the scope of the device to collect scent from dead bodies.

Ashton asks if the doctor would agree that this collection method is inferior to the triple sorbent traps. The doctor agrees that this is the case. Ashton also asks about the “background noise” of the samples collected. There were some compounds found in the morgue bodies that weren’t found in the crematorium bodies – Ashton speculates that this may have been compounds that were ambient in the air, and the doctor agrees that this is a possibility.

Ashton also clarifies that the pork, beef, tuna etc. that the doctor tested was not a “fresh kill” kind of meat, but unprocessed meat foods for human consumption that were purchased, allowed to rot, and then tested. And the chart indicates that there is a great difference in the chemical compounds between the animal meats and the human bodies.

Ashton then asks about the chart comparing the varied studies and papers on human decomposition. Ashton asks which of the studies covered the longest period of time and the Doctor says that would be the Vass studies. Vass’s study is the only one that looked at bodies over a period of time. The other studies looked at one point in the decompositional process. Vass’s study and the Strathopopolis study were the only ones to use the triple sorbent traps and they were the only ones that looked at whole bodies. The other studies were looking simply at body parts or blood. Only the Vass studies analyzed anerobic bodies.

Ashton asks the doctor if this is why Vass’s study identified the most number of compounds – he looked at the bodies over time, he studied different environments and he used triple sorbent traps. The doctor agrees.

Ashton then poses to the doctor that even though the doctor doesn’t think the presence of the odor is enough to establish the presence of human remains, given the chemical analysis of the odor, along with the presence of fatty acids on the paper towel, the inorganic compounds found in the carpet, and the volatile fatty acids found in the carpet –those four things together – the things that Dr. Vass’s study showed – can the doctor please tell the jury – can all four of those things together be explained by the presence of a dead body in the car?

The doctor says it’s possible. But the chloroform and the carbon tetrachloride have only been found in two studies to be present in human decomposition, so they could have come from another source. Otherwise they are inconsistent with the other studies that have been published.

Ashton says “but they were found in two studies” And the doctor says yes – by the same person who did the analysis in this case. And Ashton points out that unless the doctor discredits that study (which the doctor doesn’t) then the presence of these chemicals could indicate human decomposition. The doctor says he does discredit the studies in that they are limited in scope and ongoing research.

Ashton asks if the doctor actually questions that Dr. Vass’s study found chloroform and carbon tetrachloride? The doctor says that Vass did not run standards, which may or may not be correct, but the doctor does believe he saw them on the GC/MS.

Ashton asks if the doctor thinks that the studies were not done thoroughly, properly or correctly? And the doctor says – they should have run standards.

Ashton shows the doctor his deposition wherein he said “I’m not saying the tests were not run thoroughly, properly or correctly.” Ashton asks if the doctor has changed his opinion. The doctor says he’s just saying that there’s another step that’s missing – he’s not saying the findings are invalid.

Ashton asks about the study by the student that involved the morgue/crematorium. Ashton asks if in this study, they relied on the GC/MS to identify a number of the compounds they found. The doctor says yes, that’s right. The top 20 compounds they found they ran standards on – the lesser abundant compounds they did not.

Ashton asks the doctor what other one event or substance, other than a decomposing human body, could explain all 4 things found by Dr. Vass in this case? The doctor says it could be a combination of things – like the cleaning products reported by Dr. Vass – in addition to a decompositional event, doesn’t have to be human – these things could explain all 4 findings. Ashton says “So there is no one other things that could explain all four findings except for a human decompositional event? ”The doctor says “Well, it could even be a human decompositional event plus something else: He does not accept that a human decompositional event would explain the chloroform or the carbon tetrachloride. And the doctor doesn’t think it has to be a human decompositional even t- it could be an animal combined with consumer products.

Ashton then asks “OK – from what you know that was found in the trunk of the car – how do you explain these four findings?” The doctor starts talking about the cheese and the salami, the milk lipds….I’m not sure if he knows that the packages were all empty or if he thinks that just the fact that those products used to be in those packages is enough.

Ashton asks the doctor if he agrees that something was decomposing in the trunk of the car. The doctor agrees. Ashton says that the only question is what was it, right? And the doctor agrees again. Ashton asks the doctor again – from what we know was in the trunk, what is it that you believe – is there anything in there – which you believe would account for the findings of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory?

The doctor says “we just talked about that” – he thinks it’s garbage combined with cleaning products (I think). Ashton must think that, too, because he has the doctor put up the slide with the garbage.

Since the doctor mentioned the salami package in his own speculation about what cause the chemical compounds related to decomposition, Ashton circles that one first. He asks the doctor if he agrees that there was no meat in this package. The doctor agrees and says that there would have been residue. Ashton asks if he would agree that a little residue in the bottom of the package isn’t going to be enough to create an odor that will permeate an entire trunk and be detectable by the methods used. He said no, not if this package were by itself and put in the trash, probably not. Ashton then circles the “Velveeta Remnants” the packaging of the cheese products. Ashton then asks if the doctor knows how much of Velveeta is actually a milk product. The doctor laughs and says, yeah, it’s main ingredient is milk and milk fat – but not very much cheese. Ashton asks if the doctor knows home much Velveeta was in the package. The doctor says he doesn’t know, but from the pictures, it wasn’t very much.

Ashton goes and gets the packaging. Baez objects and says this was after it was altered. Overruled.

Ashton opens the Rigatoni & Broccoli Velveeta cheese box. The doctor agrees that there is no food in this box and it would not produce an odor.

Ashton opens the next evidence item. The doctor says there could be residue, and residual odor is not visible to the naked eye.

Ashton opens the third item – a soiled box. The doctor says that if this were contaminated with residue from the actual foil package, it might give off an odor. Yeah, Ashton goes and gets the foil package. There is some cheese residue on the inside.

Baez objects again – it’s altered evidence. Overruled.

Ashton passes the foil around to the jury. I’m wondering if they’re smelling it. I’d smell it.

Sidebar.

After the sidebar Ashton asks the doctor of he would agree that there was not sufficient amounts of organic material to create the level of chemical compounds and decompositional odors that were found. The doctor says he could not say that –there was some rotting cheese on the inside of the foil. That would be consistent with the same fatty acids in the report that he read. That one thing or if that just contributed is speculation. Maybe not that one thing alone, but we don’t know what caused the stain, so maybe these things were just contributors.

Ashton says “But we’ve been through everything in the trunk – as far as you know?” The doctor says – as far as I know, yes. Ashton asks if the limited amount of organic material that they saw in the garbage be sufficient to leave a smell in the vehicle two years after it was removed. The doctor says that would be unlikely.

Ashton is through. Baez is re-directing. He notes that in the “human bar code” chart that shows the top 20 chemicals found consistently among the deceased bodies in the doctor’s study there was none of the five chemicals Vass found in this case.

Baez asks the doctor if a body that has been buried for one year, or five years, or 10 years, assist him in any way with rendering an opinion in this case. The doctor says it would be limited use. But it’s helpful to look at all studies and information.

WooHoo! A return visit of Baez’s favorite garbage picture. He asks the doctor if the garbage on the right is different than the garbage on the left. The doctor says it’s spread out.

Baez asked probably 25 questions in this exchange that were objected to and sustained. The funny part was when Ashton would object to something and Baez would whine “He did that when he was questioning, your honor!!” It’s like, yeah, he did, you should have OBJECTED, maybe?? It really was kind of amusing.

Baez then digs into the garbage. He shows the doctor the brown stain on the lip of the can – and asks the doctor if that looks like chewing tobacco. The doctor agrees. But there’s nothing in the can. Baez asks if the doctor knows where that spit is. He says he doesn’t. Baez shows the doctor the Velveeta box again. He shows him a purple stain on the box and asks the doctor where the source of that stain is. The doctor says it’s no longer there. Baez shows him pupera on the box and asks if there must have been something there to attract those insects. The doctor agrees. Baez asks if the chemical composition of the trash would have changed from three years ago when it was collected to now, and after being put in a dry room. The doctor agrees with that as well.

Baez asks if science has advanced enough yet for scientists to know with any certainty what the unique chemical signature is of human decomposition. The doctor says he doesn’t think so.

Baez is done. Ashton re-crosses. He asks the doctor if it’s true that the property of an odor is such that it is stronger the closer it is to the source. The doctor agrees. Ashton then asks that if the odor was emanating from the garbage bag, then when the bag was removed from the trunk the smell would go with it. The doctor says that if there were residue on the carpet, then some smell would still be associated with that. And Ashton asks if the majority of the odor would go with the bag. The doctor agrees.

Ashton asks if the witness reviewed the reports of the crime scene technicians. He said he had. Ashton asks if any of those reports noted that anyone said that there was a strong, offensive odor, similar to death, was emanating form the bag. The doctor says not in any reports he read.

The defense calls Sgt. John Allen. Ann Finnell is questioning this witness. This is going to be a fucking blast.

Allen was the supervising sergeant in this case.

He brought with him today (or had them delivered) 2 Mini DV tapes. These items he got from a Mr. James Hoover in December 2008 and January 2009. He also brought with him a DVD disc that is a copy of the Mini DV’s that the AV unit of the OCSD made.

Finnell is done (yeah)

Burdick crosses. She asks if this “James Hoover” is an associate of one Dominic Casey. The witness says he is. Mr. Casey was a private investigator who worked for Jose Baez. In October 2008 he was hired by the Anthony family after a falling out with Baez. Mr. Casey was an individual who would email information to the witness regarding the location of a live Caylee Anthony for many months. The witness says that he went round and round with Dominic Casey during the search not only for Casey but also during the search for the original suspect Zanny the Nanny.

Mr. Hoover came to the attention of Sgt. Allen when Allen became aware that Hoover was trying to sell these videos to the National Enquirer. On December 18th, 2008 the tapes were turned over to Allen in the parking lot of a Publix when Special Agent Nic Savage and Allen interviewed Hoover. It was Allen’s understanding that these tapes held all of the information that Hoover possessed that was relevant to the investigation. Later, he found out that there was additional evidence on another tape that contained different information than what had already been turned over. Allen obtained the other tape.

Allen testifies that Hoover didn’t ask the OCSD for money.

On Re-direct, Finnell asks the witness about dates. Allen doesn’t know specific dates, either of his termination with Baez or his employment by the Anthony’s.

The witness is excused. The defense calls James Hoover. He has a huge cast/ace bandage thing on his left hand. Guess he hit someone.

Hoover is a licensed private investigator. Baez asks Hoover when and how he got involved in this case. He says that he got involved as a private citizen in July 2008, basically. Baez asks how that happened. He says that he “went down” as a private investigator, and eventually he ended up providing private investigative services for George and Cindy Anthony, probably at the end of July, beginning of August. He says he simply went and offered his services to George Anthony while George was in his front yard.

Primarily he acted as someone who kept the harassers away from their house and from them. Kind of like a bodyguard. The Anthony’s brought Hoover into their inner circle – they trusted him. He also assisted with following up on tips, in conjunction with a man named Dominic Casey, who had worked with the defense team, and then began working with the Anthony’s.

On November 15th, 2008 he worked on a tip with Dominic Casey. That morning he called Dominic at about 8:15. Dominic told Hoover to go to his office; Dominic had something to tell Hoover. Hoover met Dominic and asked him what he wanted to tell him.

That day they were scheduled to act as bodyguards for George and Cindy at a meet and greet in Orlando. Instead, they went to Suburban Drive to look for Caylee. She was supposed to be in the wooded area and deceased. Hoover videotaped this search.

Hoover identifies the video tapes, there is a sidebar, and the jury is sent out for another “brief legal matter”.

The judge asks Baez if the witness has authenticated the tapes. Baez says yes, and asks Hoover if he saw the tapes and if he can authenticate them. The witness says yes.

They return the jury.

Baez asks again if the witness has seen the tape, and if it is a fair and accurate representation. Baez establishes with the witness that this tape was filmed one month before Caylee’s remains were found. Dominic knew that Hoover was video taping him.

They show the tape to the jury. It’s kind of a weird tape. Hoover is no videographer, that’s for sure. Half the tape is him taping out the front window of the vehicle, and Dominic Casey is on the phone the entire time he’s on camera. (Although that’s an intriguing question – who was he on the phone with – was that person “guiding” him?)

Hoover testifies that they walked the length of Suburban Drive. They were specifically looking for three pavers.

The tape then changes locations to what looks like the side of someone’s house where there are a number of black plastic bags. Dominic Casey is seen hitting and moving the plastic bag to judge their contents. Hoover says they were looking for Caylee’s remains in a black plastic bag. Then we see Dominic Casey digging with a spade in the dirt beside a house or shed or barn. It looks like there’s a black plastic bag buried where he is digging.

Then they are back in the woods off of Suburban Drive. They find a small blanket.

The tape continues with footage from the next day.

Baez asks him to point out on a map where he parked and where he searched, but Hoover can’t really do it without the utility poles to orient himself.

The tape continues with Casey going down the path into the woods – it seems to be the same path that Caylee’s remains were found on. He sees a paver stone and yells out to Hoover “Here it is!” Yeah, he has some inside information from someone about this area. You can bet on that.

Baez stops the tape and asks the witness if he just saw that fallen tree. Good God. They were right there. They find the three pavers they were (for some reason) looking for. Dominic Casey is seen poking with a stick at the underbrush and between rocks. Hoover says that he was “probing” the area for the remains.

And then the video is back at that house. Where Dominic counts the pavers again – one, two, three. Did Casey stop at this house first and get some pavers to mark the path or the dump site? Which doesn’t really make sense, since she knew the area, and her friend said that they used to bury pets and stuff there, and it was reported that Casey used to play in those woods as a child.

The tape is finished. Baez has the witness mark on a map where he was when he was taping.

Baez shows him another map that shows where the abandoned house was that was shown in the video – that’s where they were digging and found the paver stones.

Baez asks if the witness notified law enforcement of the existence of these tapes after he learned that Caylee’s remains were found a month later in the same area where he was looking. The witness says no, he didn’t tell law enforcement at that time. He thought that he had taped over the tape with a Christmas Parade his son was in. Eventually he found the tape – and found it hadn’t been taped over. That tape was never for sale.

Dominic Casey had some still photos that he had taken in the woods. He tried to sell these photographs right before Christmas because he was broke. Hoover tried to sell the photos to Fox News for Dominic. He was going to give the money to Dominic and the Anthony’s.

When Law Enforcement interviewed Hoover, he gave them the Christmas Parade video, thinking that this was the original video – taped over. It wasn’t until December 30th or so that he realized he did have the video of the woods and that it wasn’t taped over. He didn’t lie to Law Enforcement or intentionally give them the wrong video – he really thought that the video of the woods had been taped over.

Baez asks about Hoover’s attempts to sell the tape to Fox News. Hoover insists the only tape he tried to sell was the one that he thought was taped over-t hat this tape had no value to him because it was taped over. Baez asks how much he was going to get for the tape. Hoover says that someone told him it could be worth $200,000. But Hoover says he made no money from the video.

Baez is done. Burdick crosses. She asks the witness if he was just trying to hold out for the highest bidder. Hoover says absolutely not. Burdick says he gave law enforcement two videos – one that had bad color and one that contained a Christmas pageant. Burdick says the witness told law enforcement that the woods video was taped over. The witness says it was. Burdick says – no it wasn’t you still had it. And the witness says he believed it was taped over. When he discovered he still had the tape, he immediately called the lawyer’s (maybe Baez) that contacted law enforcement.

Burdick asks Hoover if he was secretly trying to videotape the Anthony family. He says no. Burdick says the witness was trying to capitalize n his relationship wit the family. Hoover says “You’re so wrong.” Burdick says that he was secretly taping Dominic Casey on the first day. The witness says no, Dominic knew he was being taped.

The first day they parked the car near the corner of Hopespring and Suburban. When Dominic first got out of the car he moved the cameras from the front seat to the back seat. He got out of the car and told Hoover “wait here for a minute”. Hoover got the camera and started filming Dominic Casey. The film had a lot of “off color” to it, so Hoover changed the film. Then, when he looked back after changing tapes, he could no longer see Dominic, so he backed the car up until he saw the point in the woods where Dominic was.

They went back to the house and then went back to the wooded area later that day. This is when they were looking for the “pavers”. On the second day they parked near the third light pole from the corner.

Burdick asks about the blanket they found in the woods. Burdick asks if it was really a bath mat. Hoover says he never touched it, but it looked like a blanket to him. Burdick says in the video tape that Dominic Casey says it was a bath mat. Burdick asks if, to this day the witness knows where Caylee’s skull was found. The witness says no, he doesn’t know. And he doesn’t know where her skeleton was found. He didn’t see a red Disney bag. And there were several fallen trees or logs in the woods. He says he didn’t end up in any water. He did see water the second day – 15 feet or so into the woods. His shoes got soggy.

Burdick is done. Baez re-directs. First thing he makes clear is that Hoover never gave him the video. And he never tried to sell it to Baez. Baez then asks Hoover what they were doing in the woods one month before Caylee was found? Hoover says “looking for Caylee’s remains.”

The witness is excused. The defense calls Dominic Casey. He is a private investigator and a security officer. He’s been licensed as a PI since March 2008. On October 1st, 2008 he was employed by George and Cindy Anthony. He was previously employed by Baez Law Firm. He terminated his relationship with Baez on October 1st, 2008. There was some overlap in the two.

He was following up on tips for George and Cindy that they were receiving on the hotline. He was also doing security work for them. There were protestors at the house and they would congregate there daily from September until the end of October or so.

Because of the protestors he would park his car on Suburban Drive for 20 to 30 minutes at the end of every evening to make sure all the protesters had actually left the area. While he was sitting there he would see other people in the area. Specifically, he would see Sheriff’s vehicles in the area of the school, and a couple of media vehicles.

Finnell asks him about a teddy bear. And how he facilitated the sending of the teddy bear to Luke Phillips.

He acquired an address from Luke Phillips, gave the address to Cindy Anthony and asked Cindy if she could send something of Caylee’s to Luke Phillips. She said yes, and she forwarded a teddy bear. Cindy told him it was a teddy bear. Dominic got a package back from Luke that was meant for Cindy. He brought the box to Cindy. Cindy opened the box. And it was Teddy.

Luke Phillips is a man who offered help to the family right from the beginning in July. He is a psychic pimp. He aids in searches and hooks desperate families up with “psychics”.

On November 15th, 2008 he went with James Hoover to Suburban Drive. Dominic Casey describes Hoover as a volunteer who provided security services to the family. On November 15th 2008, he was on a cell phone on Suburban Drive. He was talking to Jeanette Lucas. She is a psychic.

Dominic Casey draws on a map the area where he went on Suburban Drive on November 15th, 2008.

He went to the location to look for the remains of Caylee after receiving the call from Jeanette.

He walked down the middle of the road towards the school, and told Hoover to stay in the vehicle. He walked far enough away from the vehicle so that Hoover couldn’t hear him. He was on the phone with Jeanette and headed into the woods. He went into the woods about 20 – 25 feet. And he was in the woods for maybe less than 10 minutes. As he came out he saw Hoover standing within 10 feet from the curb with a video camera in his hands. Dominic Casey says he never gave Hoover permission to tape him. Hoover said he wanted the tape for Dominic’s file.

When he came out of the woods he saw another opening into the woods. A trail, more or less. He went into the second opening maybe 20 -25 feet. It was white, sandy and there was two or three inches of water. He spent 10 minutes or so walking around looking. He was looking for three white paver stones.

From there he came out of the woods onto Suburban drive, got into the vehicle and went around to a few streets over where there was a vacant house. (On Jeanette’s instructions he went to this house.) He stayed at this house maybe 10 minutes. He was looking for the three paver stones here. He cut open some garbage bags to see what was inside of them.

Then they went to the Hotel by the Airport to pick someone up for the “meet and greet” event being hosted by George and Cindy.

The next day he and Hoover went back to Suburban Drive. He went back there to prove a psychic wrong. He went through the same two opening. He just wanted to pan around and look. Make sure he didn’t miss anything that Jeanette was telling him and what she was telling him to look for. He spent maybe 15 minutes that time. And Hoover was still with him. And still video taping him. This time it was with Dominic’s approval. And this time Dominic brought a stick because the ground conditions were soft, silty sand. And they saw plenty of snakes in the area the day before. They found nothing.

They went back to the abandoned house, as well, and looked around there. They found nothing.

Dominic went back to Suburban Drive a third time Hoover was not with him this time. He was on his way to the Anthony residence the following week – maybe the 18th or 19th. He went back for relief. He did not go into the woods at all. He parked and got out of his vehicle and walked up and down the length of the woods in the middle of the street. He wasn’t looking for anything.

Finnell is done. Mr. George gets up to cross. Dominic Casey had contact with Casey while she was out of jail. His job was to follow up tips and whatever investigation needed to be done. While he was working for the Anthony’s he would have contact with Mr. Baez.

George asks about the first time Dominic Casey went to eh Suburban Drive location He did that at the behest of a psychic named Jeanette Lucas. She was directing him. George asks the witness what Cindy Anthony’s mood and demeanor were at this time in November 2008. The witness says she was traumatized and distraught. She was missing her granddaughter and her daughter. The witness says George Anthony was similarly traumatized and distraught.

Mr. George asks if the witness went to the area to help George and Cindy and Dominic Casey says no, he wouldn’t put it that way. Jeannette Lucas called him early Saturday morning and all he was doing was following up on the tip. George and Cindy did not send him into those woods.

Mr. George asks the witness to mark on a map where Hoover’s vehicle was parked on November 15th and where he went into the woods.

He remembers seeing an old busted toilet in the woods, and he saw many trash bags just thrown around. He cut a few of them open. He also found a bath mat. He did not see a red Disney bag. It wasn’t an exhaustive search. He thinks he was on the phone most of the time.

He left that day and called Luke Phillips (to tell him Jeannette was full of shit. She called him back the next morning and he told her what he had seen and what he had done. She told him to go back.) So he went back to the woods. He spoke with Jeannette again when he got there. This time he brought a trowel and a probe. He told Hoover he could tape the search but he also told him that there was to be no audio. Dominic Casey only learned today that there was audio on the tape. Dominic had forbid this.

He then went to the area a third time – on his own. He walked towards the school, then towards Hopespring then back to his vehicle. He never left the road.

Mr. George is through. Finnell re-directs. She has him mark more maps with X”s and O’s. And he explains again that these are estimations. He says he did this for the Prosecutors in March 2011. Which gets a sidebar because I don’t think the defense knew that he did this. If he did it. Yeah, they did know this, it was his deposition.

Finnell goes through the whole “Did you have a tape measure on that day…..” To prove that these are estimations. Proving again that even if you videotape something, once side or the other will try to prove you wrong.

Dominic Casey is excused.

Ashton starts out the day with drama. At 8:40 he had been handed documents that the defense wants to use with their witness Dr. Kenneth Furton. After quickly looking through the documents, Ashton noticed that the doctor has done additional research since Ashton’s deposition with him, such as additional resources for Chloroform, In his deposition when asked about sources of chloroform, he said he didn’t know off the top of his head, and now he has a specific slide he wants to present with several sources laid out.

Also in his deposition he was asked about possible sources for the odor signature, and he replied that he wasn’t fully aware, that it could be various things, and now Ashton has been handed slides where he is going to point out specific sources and causes of this odor.

So now, once again we are in the position of expert witnesses having supplemented their opinions without notice to the state. Ashton only had ten minutes to look at the report he was handed, but he would like a full Richardson Hearing on the matter.

The judge says “well we won’t be having one today…we’ll have one at the close of testimony, but he will not testify to anything that is not in his report – he can come back next week to finish up.”

Baez says that the state is incorrect – Furton has been asked about these issues – these are issues that are central to the case…..

The judge says all he needs to know from Baez is whether this witness’s opinions have changed since he was deposed, and if they have, has he issued a supplemental report.

Baez says he doesn’t see any new opinions here that have not already been disclosed either in depositions, reports or Frye hearings. Baez says “I guess the more that you make this argument, the more that it becomes real even though it’s not true. So Ashton can continue to make this allegation and continue to make this allegation, and maybe they come to fruition in his world. But I believe them to be untrue.”

Ashton says he would like a chance to argue before the court before Dr. Furton testifies, after he has a chance to fully look at the report and compare it to the deposition so he can fully document where the doctor’s opinions have been supplemented.

Baez then says Ashton is asking for more time to review the doctor’s deposition – he doesn’t even know if it’s new testimony or not. Baez says “He’s saying just let me go ahead and make the accusation, even though I don’t have the proof…If Mr. Ashton has specific evidence of new opinions, fine, but he shouldn’t be standing here in front of the court making allegations he has no evidence for..”

Ashton gets up and gives one illustration of his objection. He points to a specific passage in the deposition where the doctor is asked about the source of the chloroform and the doctor answers that any answer he gave would be pure speculation. Ashton points out that the answer is vague and not tied to any concrete information. The Power Point slide has specific chloroform levels from specific items from the trunk. And Ashton says that this is just one example that he was able to find quickly.

Baez says that these amounts were from the testimony of Dr. Rickenbach, Which opposing counsel got from Dr. Rickenbach, and which wasn’t in his report. Baez says it’s a little silly for counsel to say he isn’t aware of this information when it was elicited by him from his own witness.

The judge requests a copy of the Doctor’s report, and the judge would like to know if this demonstrative aid is of the type that the defense objected to when the state didn’t provide notice to the defense.

Baez then says that they are not going to go through this, and they will have the doctor tailor his testimony to items that the state is fully aware of. Baez says there is nothing secretive going on – if the state objecting to the power point presentation, they will take out any slides he has legitimate concerns about. The defense says they will take it from there – this has really gone on long enough and the defense is not willing to go through this. Baez says the witness has plenty to say and all of this may be unnecessary.

The judge says all he can do is go over the doctor’s deposition and report and go from there. He says that you would think that this would have grown old by now, but some things never change.

Mason asks for a sidebar, they speak for a bit then everyone goes into the judge’s chambers.

Casey emerges from the holding area, crying. The lawyers have an informal chat in the sidebar area, without the judge, who is still behind closed doors, then Ashton motions for the court reporter and everyone goes into the back room area again, leaving Casey crying at the defense table with Dorothy Sims. A few minutes later Casey, too, goes behind the closed doors.

After 20 minutes or so, Casey emerges. This time dry eyed. She reads intently the real time computer, which, presumably, since the court reporter went behind the closed doors, is still reporting what the attorneys are talking about with the judge.

Twenty minutes later, the attorneys emerge, along with the court reporter. And the judge.

The judge asks in open court if both sides concur that a legal issue has arisen unrelated to the issue that we talked about first thing this morning dealing with Dr. Furton that would necessitate us recessing for today?

The state and defense both concur. The judge recesses court until 8:30 am Monday morning. And has the court reporter go with him to chambers. Again.

.

And what is Cindy going to claim as her own this time?

Baez talks to her about the shorts that were found with Caylee’s remains. These shorts no longer fit her. The picture that has been entered into evidence of Caylee wearing the shorts was taken in early 2007. And Caylee, like all other children, would have grown quite a bit between 2007 and 2008.

Baez asks the witness if Cindy had also taken a video at the same time that the photo was taken. She says she did. Baez wants to enter that video into evidence. The state objects and there is a side bar.

Baez is allowed to enter the video. Cindy cries as the video plays. The video shows Casey and Caylee playing on the floor together with Casey bouncing Caylee on her legs. Baez asks how she knows the date of this video. Cindy says she knows it was taken early in 2007 because of the skirt is she is seen wearing in the video. She didn’t wear that skirt after this time. It was a Hawaiian print, and even though she still had the skirt, she didn’t wear it after early 2007.

Baez then asks Cindy again about the photo taken at her brother’s wedding where Casey is obviously pregnant to everyone except her immediate family. Again, there is a sidebar. Baez must have lost this one – when they come back he starts showing Cindy pictures of their pool.

Cindy identifies a picture of the ladder leaning against the pool and explains how the ladder attaches to the pool. She then identifies a picture of the ladder lying on the ground, up against the pool and says this is how it would look with the ladder off the pool.

Baez then shows Cindy another picture and Cindy starts crying. He asks if she would like to take a break and she says that she is OK. This picture is a picture of Caylee walking up the ladder, with Cindy walking up the ladder behind her. There’s another sidebar. Baez must have won this one, as well, because he continues with the photo of Caylee and Cindy in the pool.

The photo was taken in the summer of 2007. Caylee is walking up the ladder with Cindy’s hands just lightly on her back. Cindy says that she certainly got better at this – that she could walk up the ladder by herself and get into the pool. Cindy would just be behind her as a safety net. Baez shows more photos showing Caylee on the ladder and she and Cindy getting into the pool.

Cindy says in 2008 that Caylee probably swam in the pool 3 or 4 times a week. And the week that Cindy was on vacation and home with Caylee, they swam in the pool every day. But always with a life vest.

Cindy says that they took numerous precautions with Caylee around the pool. They made sure that once Caylee started walking, that they moved their pool box to up against the house so that Caylee couldn’t climb on it and get into the pool. They took extra precautions every day to take the ladder off from the pool and take it off when they were done. They also taught Caylee that she had to be with a grown up to go into the pool, and why, that she could get hurt. They kept the life vest on the back patio.

Baez then shows Cindy another photo – this one of Caylee at the sliding glass door that goes fro the living room to the patio. She is reaching up to open the door. Cindy says that in this photo Caylee is approximately the same height as the last time she saw her.

Cindy also testifies that Caylee always had shoes on when she left the house.

On June 16th, 2008 Cindy came home and found the ladder attached to the pool. This was highly unusual. So much that she called George at work to see if he left the ladder up – because she also saw the gate open. When she went to work again, she told her co-workers about the ladder being on the pool.

Baez then asks the witness if at this time, she was also having marital problems. There’s an objection and another sidebar. The judge calls for a break.

When they return from break the judge says that he has reviewed the case law concerning theory of defense. The judge recaps the defense’s theory in this case, that the death was an accidental drowning and that his client’s subsequent behavior was caused by long term sexual abuse of Miss Anthony at the hands of her father and brother. He asks Baez if this is correct. Baez says”among other things….” And the judge wants to know “what other things?” Because that’s all Baez has offered in his opening statement. The judge says he has reviewed case law and as long as the proposed exhibits are relevant and admissible, they can come in under “theory of defense”, but that Baez can’t use this as a blanket for entering just any testimony he would like – it has to be relevant and admissible. So the judge asks Baez “What is your theory of defense?”

The judge goes on that he is basing his assumptions about the defense theory on Baez’s opening statement. And that this assumption of defense is the only reason he allowed the photos of Caylee climbing the steps to the swimming pool. The judge says if the theory of defense is ever changing, well, somebody try to explain it to him.

And they go to sidebar.

They come back and Cindy gets back on the stand.

Baez asks Cindy if she advised Yuri Melich about the ladder being up against the pool on July 16th 2008. Cindy says yes, she advised him of this within 24 hours of calling law enforcement.

Baez is done. Burdick cross examines.

Burdick asks about the clothes – specifically the shorts. Even after Caylee went missing form her home, Cindy maintained Caylee’s bedroom, and all of her clothes were still in her room. Cindy even kept her birthday presents – because after she went missing and before her remains were found, she had a birthday. IN the past, when Caylee would outgrow clothes, Cindy would have a garage sale and sell some of them. She also would store outgrown clothes in plastic containers.

When Caylee went missing she was”pretty much” potty trained. They would still carry pull ups when they went out or would be driving distances where they couldn’t get to a potty right away. When she was home, she would wear underwear. Burdick asks when Caylee made the switch from full fledged diapers to pull ups. Cindy says early in 2008.

Burdick shows Cindy the photograph that shows Caylee wearing the shorts that were found with her remains. It is obvious in that picture that she was wearing either a pull up or a diaper. There is plastic from a diaper visible above the top of the shorts.

Burdick shows Cindy a series of photographs showing Caylee’s clothing. Cindy says that she or George were generally the ones who washed the clothing. And she and Casey bought a lot of Caylee’s clothing – plus what she got from friends and family. Cindy recognizes the “Circo” brand as a Target brand. Lots of Caylee’s clothes were from Target.

Cindy says she recognizes all the photos as tops and shorts that belonged to Caylee. These are items that were in Caylee’s room as of June 2008. There are a mixture of size 2 and 3 clothes.

Burdick asks the witness if, like all children, was a little stockier when she was less mobile, and as she learned to walk she thinned out while growing taller. Cindy says this is true. (And when a kid is wearing diapers – the same shorts might fit once they are wearing underwear.)

Cindy says the particular shorts that were found with Caylee’s remains, she hadn’t seen those in a while. Burdick points out that this could have been because they were packed in a backpack and kept in Casey’s car – or George’s car, or even her own car. The witness says this could have been possible. But these particular shorts weren’t one of her favorite outfits. She wouldn’t have dressed Caylee in these. Casey might have, but she wouldn’t have. Cindy doesn’t recall seeing these shorts after 2007.

Burdick then asks Cindy how heavy the ladder was. Cindy doesn’t know, but she couldn’t have lifted it with one hand. Caylee couldn’t have lifted it.

The door is heavy, as well; you have to have a pretty good force to open it.

Caylee was a very compliant child – she would follow instructions. And if you gave her directions she would listen. And it was Cindy’s testimony that she was very careful to give Caylee instructions about putting on the life vest or climbing the ladder to the pool.

The pool was approximately 4 feet deep. If you stood outside the pool, an adult could not retrieve objects that were in the pool unless those objects were at the edge.

Caylee was never left home alone.

Burdick then asks about the “incident” when the ladder was found on the pool and the gate being open. Burdick asks if it’s true that Caylee couldn’t open that gate. Cindy agrees she couldn’t. Burdick also asks if Cindy has testified previously that this incident was before the gas can incident. And then once she said it was previous to that, and once she said it was the month before.

And she said she called George, she doesn’t know if it was from the house phone or the cell phone. And it would have had to have been a call to his cell phone – or his work phone. And she remembers speaking to him – she didn’t leave a message.

Burdick asks if the witness would acknowledge that she’s already been pretty unreliable with regards to other dates and events that happened in June 2008. She even got the date wrong that she last saw Caylee.

Burdick then has Cindy go over her time card for the time period of June 16th. Her time card accurately reflects that she was at work that day – and it also accurately reflects her vacation from the week before.

Burdick asks Cindy if Casey ever told Cindy that there had been an accident involving the pool. Cindy says no,. Burdick asks if Casey continued to assert that the child was kidnapped. Cindy says that is correct.

Burdick is done. Baez re-directs.

Baez asks if the photos shown to Cindy by Burdick are all just photos of tags. Cindy says all but one. And all but one are also knit material garments. Stretchy. Cindy says they have kept a lot of Caylee’s stuff. Caylee’s clothing that she had outgrown would have been kept throughout the house. And no, Cindy hadn’t seen her wearing those shorts she had been found in for several months.

Cindy says that there were several times a year she would go through Caylee’s drawers and pull out old clothes – mostly holidays and seasonally. And unless she was washing the clothes, she probably wouldn’t see Caylee’s clothes.

Cindy says that she wasn’t overly strict with Caylee – she ran around and played. Baez asks if she was an average toddler – Cindy says she thought she was above average.

Baez is through.

Burdick asks exactly what material the shorts were that were found with Caylee. Cindy says a sturdy cotton that has less give than a denim fabric.

The witness is excused. The defense calls Lee Anthony.

Baez asks Lee if he once owned the Sunfire. Lee says yes – he owned it from 2000 to 2005. Lee identifies photos of the trunk of the car. Lee says there were a few stains in the car when he owned it. They were all outside the spare tire cover.

Baez then asks Lee when was the first time he noticed that his sister was pregnant. Lee says that he noticed in early to mid pregnancy. This is when he was living at home with Casey and his parents. He was waiting for her to come out of the bathroom one night, and when she came out of the bathroom, he could see her mid-section, and to him she was obviously pregnant. At that time it struck him as odd, because he hadn’t noticed it before that time. Lee says he made a comment towards Casey – something like” What the hell is that?” pointing to her stomach. And she just kind of waved him off. The next time he saw his mother he asked her “Is Casey pregnant because it looks that way to me.”

Lee says that he and his mother never talked about Casey’s pregnancy. Casey had picked Lee up at the airport – and she was very obviously pregnant then. This was several months after Lee had asked his mother about Casey’s pregnancy. No one ever talked to him about Casey’s pregnancy until a few days before Caylee was born. That was the only time it was acknowledged to Lee that Casey was even pregnant. Baez asks Lee if he went to eh hospital to see Casey when Caylee was born. Lee says “Regrettably, no I did not.” Baez asks Lee why he didn’t go, and Lee says that he was hurt. He just didn’t want to be there.

Baez then asks him who he was angry with – there’s a sustained objection. Baez tries four different questions in a row asking why Lee was hurt, why he didn’t go to the hospital, who he was made at, why he did what he did – all sustained objections. Baez asks for a sidebar so he an explain relevancy, and the judge allows that. In the meantime, while the parties are at the sidebar, Lee starts breaking down on the stand. He is getting clearly emotional, starting to cry and rub his eyes.

Baez has the objection overruled once they come back form sidebar, and he again asks Lee “Can you tell us why you were angry and who you were angry with and why you didn’t go see Caylee and Casey at the hospital?” And now, a much more emotional Lee answers Baez with “I was very angry with my mom and with my sister. And I was just angry with everyone in general that they didn’t want to include me and that they didn’t find it important enough to tell me. Especially after I had already asked. So I was very hurt. And I didn’t want to – I don’t think I wanted to believe it.”

Baez asks if there were other reasons why he was angry. Lee says no.

Ashton crosses the witness. He asks about the photograph of the trunk of the car –t he one in which Lee pointed out the three stains that he said had been present back when he was driving the vehicle. Ashton circles the stain on the spare tire cover and asks Lee if this stain was present when he was driving the vehicle. Lee says that this is not a stain he had seen previously. Ashton asks the witness if the car had a stench or a stink when he owned the car. Lee laughs and says “no, no it didn’t”.

Ashton asks the witness if, in preparation for the trial, Lee was asked to meet with the prosecutors or a member of the team to go over his testimony and prepare him for what questions he would be asked on direct examination. Lee says he believes so, yes. Ashton asks if Lee refused to do that. And Lee says yes, he did refuse.

Ashton then asks if Lee met with Mr. Baez this week to go over the testimony Lee would give on direct with him. Lee says that it was not to go over his testimony, and that Lee had previously refused to meet with Baez, as well. Lee says that he had reached out to Baez prior to this week, and they followed up with that with a meeting earlier this week.

Ashton asks “You reached out to Mr. Baez?” And Lee says yes, last week he had. Ashton asks for what purpose – and Baez objects. The objection is overruled. Ashton says “My question is why would you, after refusing to meet with anyone from the prosecution team reach out to Mr. Baez?”

Lee says that while he was in court the last time, prior to being called to the stand, during a break, he sat in with his parents, and there was a discussion, or he sat in on a discussion, where information came out that he thought would be important for Jose to be made aware of, so he took it upon himself a few days later, because it didn’t seem like Jose was going to be made aware of it, to make Jose aware of that.

Ashton asks if this was on the subjects that he has testified to today during his direct examination. And Lee says no, he hasn’t discussed them on the stand today.

Ashton then asks Lee about his discovery of his sister’s pregnancy. Ashton wants to know if he had a conversation with Casey when he discovered her “bump”. Lee is not quite sure he said “bump” – but he does say he just made a reference to it without really expecting a response from Casey. He just said something like ‘What the hell is that?” to Casey in passing.

Ashton asks Lee if Lee remembers having his deposition taken on July 30th 2009. Lee says he remembers. Lee acknowledges that he was under oath at the time, and that he was questioned by Mr. George. Baez was present at this deposition.

Ashton shows Lee a series of questions and answers from the deposition – about Lee seeing Casey’s belly for the first time. The deposition asks if Lee “called her out on it”. And Lee said that he didn’t think it was his place – that if he questioned anyone it wasn’t directly to her.

Lee says that he doesn’t think his testimony today contradicted that – that he didn’t “call her out” on being pregnant when she picked him up at the airport, either, and he doesn’t know which encounter this deposition is talking about.

Ashton allows the witness to read the entire page of the deposition. Lee says he still can’t tell which encounter this was- it could have been either.

Ashton then asks Lee if, when his parents found out about Casey’s pregnancy, they were really excited. And Lee says he couldn’t tell him, because no one admitted it to him.

Ashton asks Lee if it is his testimony that from the time he learned of Casey’s pregnancy until the time the child was born, that there was no activity in the house that was indicative of preparing for the birth of a child.

Lee says he isn’t saying that at all – actually, that was one of the reasons he was so angry and decided not to go to the hospital when Casey had the baby. Because he wasn’t included in it, and when he did ask about it, it was denied to him and he was told to let it go. So that’s what he did, he let it go.

Ashton asks if it’s true that his parents were”over the top” about the baby. Lee says especially afterwards, absolutely. And Ashton says “no- even before! They were over the top – you even described them as over the top.” Lee says “My parents are very over the top – prior to Casey ever having Caylee, to be honest with you, I never really paid a lot of attention. It was something that I was told to let go and not address, and I was frankly quite angry that I wasn’t included in it, so it was easier to block it out at that time.”

Ashton shows Lee another part of his deposition. This is the part where Lee discusses the period before Caylee was born. In this passage Lee says that his role was to be in the background just to support, but not go over the top, because his parents wanted to be the ones that went over the top.

Ashton asks if this is the accurate description of his parent’s emotions about the impending arrival of their granddaughter – that they were over the top. Their excitement – that is what Lee meant to convey in that answer.

Lee says that was the impression he was under – that he wasn’t asked to be involved with things, so all he could do was sit back and be non judgmental, sit in the background and let them take care of it, they would do whatever was necessary and their nature was to be over the top.

Ashton asks Lee what preparations his parents made in the house for Caylee’s arrival. Lee says that he thinks they bought a crib. Ashton asks “Didn’t they re-decorate an entire room for her?’ Lee says he wasn’t involved in it, but he believes that they did. And Cindy doesn’t do anything halfway – it was decorated to the nines – and that was in preparation for Caylee.

Lee says that he lived in the room right next door – and Ashton says “Wasn’t there Winnie the Pooh everywhere>” Lee says he knows there was – but he never went in the room until after Caylee was born. Ashton asks if his mother and sister went shopping and bought all kinds of stuff – and had parties.

Lee says he doesn’t know if they had a baby shower – he wasn’t invited. Lee says he thinks the baby shower was in June. Ashton asks if Mallory was invited – Lee says he doesn’t believe so.

Ashton asks where Lee was – the shower was at his house. Lee says he doesn’t know – all of this was something that was either hidden from him or something he wasn’t made a part of. So he didn’t go out of his way to find out what was going on or invited himself.

Ashton points out that his parents weren’t hiding this from their friends and loved ones – they invited them to a party.

Ashton says to Lee that during his deposition, they discussed this period of time leading up to Caylee’s birth and whether or not he was present when Caylee was born. Ashton asks if Lee cried during this portion of the deposition. Lee says he doesn’t think so. Ashton asks what was different 2 hours ago in the courtroom that caused such raw emotion that wasn’t present during his deposition.

Lee says that two years ago he didn’t hold the belief that Caylee was dead. Lee says that during the last two years, and two hours ago he has come to the place where he believes that she is. He says his emotions come from the fact that he has regrets. He wishes he could have been there a lot more than he was.

Ashton says that Lee attended and spoke at a memorial service for Caylee in January of 2009 – six months before this deposition was taken. Lee says yes he did.

Ashton is done. Baez re-directs. Baez asks about the stain again. The one that Ashton described as “the size of a basketball.” Baez asks if this stain is visible in the picture. Lee says he sees a few stains, but nothing the size of a basketball. There is some white powder – but that’s not the stains Lee was referring to.

Baez asks if Lee saw his mother use an entire bottle of Febreeze in the car. And he didn’t see the crime scene technicians use “Blue Star” in the trunk.

Lee testifies that he did not meet with the defense team prior to his testimony for the state. And he did not advise the defense of any testimony he was going to give for the state.

Lee testifies that his mother is one who told him to”let it go” when he asked about Casey’s pregnancy. He also said in his deposition that his mother had some “mixed feelings” about Casey being pregnant – she wasn’t happy that Casey was having a baby out of wedlock.

Lee doesn’t know exactly when Casey’s shower was – and if it was after Caylee was born.

Baez also goes further with Ashton’s line of questioning about why Lee cried this morning on the stand – yet didn’t cry in his deposition while discussing the same issues. Baez asks if it’s different being in the courtroom than it was in a conference room during the depositions, and Lee says yes, and he’s also in a much different place emotionally than he was a couple of years ago, and this is very emotionally draining.

Lee also says that he still didn’t believe Caylee was dead at the time of the memorial service. Lee says that he doesn’t know when he actually came to the belief that Caylee was dead – he thinks that even to this day if he saw someone that looked like her that he might look twice or event here times. He says that last year, particularly, was a hard time for him around his and Caylee’s birthday.

Baez is done. Re-cross by Ashton. Ashton asks if he remembers testifying for the state a few weeks ago. He says he does. Ashton asks how many times Mr. George had to step up to him and “refresh his recollection” during that testimony. Lee says probably as many times as he’s been shown something here today by Ashton or Baez. Ashton says “During your direct by Baez did he have to refresh your recollection at all?” Lee says he thinks a couple of times. Ashton sets him straight – Baez didn’t’ have to refresh his recollection at all. Lee’s memory seemed to be just fine when he testifying for Baez. But when Mr. George asked him questions on direct – Lee’s memory was more “troublesome”. Lee says it is hard to remember stuff you did two years ago.

Ashton again shows him his deposition. He said that he only said something “probably” to his mother – that if she wasn’t making it a big deal, he wasn’t going to, either. That he only said something to her “in passing”.

Ashton then shows him a question and answer from the deposition that “refreshes his recollection” that the baby shower was in the months preceding the birth.

Lee is excused. Baez calls Cindy Anthony (again). Baez asks her when Casey’s baby shower was. Cindy says it was postponed – it was around the 27th of August, Caylee was supposed to be born in September, and they had the baby shower slated for August 13th, Caylee was born on August 9th, so she had to switch the invitations, and contact everyone and change the date of the baby shower.

So the shower was held after Caylee was born, because Caylee came a month early. And this is bullshit, and more of Cindy believing Casey’s lies. Caylee wasn’t a month early, it’s just that Casey had to keep the conception in line with the time she was with Jesse Grund so she could bullshit him into believing it was his kid. “Early” my ass. The kid was right on time.

Baez then shows Cindy the picture of Casey at Cindy’s brothers wedding (again). He asks her if, at this time, she thought Casey was pregnant. She says no. (Which I still find shocking – you know, if my mother had been as stupid and gullible as this woman, my teenage years would have been a lot more fun.)

Baez asks Cindy who attended the baby shower. Cindy says Casey’s friends, her friends, Casey’s grandmothers and aunts, Jesse Grund’s mother (Caylee’s other grandmother – ooops maybe not – she was “early”.), neighbors. Lee wasn’t there – none of the guys were.

The state has no questions for Cindy – she is excused.

The defense calls Ryan Eberlin – a member of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. On July 15th 2008, he was dispatched to the Anthony home,. He had never had any contact with them before. When he arrived he participated in asking questions and evaluating the situation. He noticed the Sunfire automobile, but did not notice any particular odor from the vehicle.

At one point during the time he was there he placed handcuffs on Casey Anthony. He was subsequently ordered to remove them by Sgt. Hosey.

The defense has no further questions.

Cross by Burdick. This witness was the junior officer on the scene. The handcuffs were only on Casey for 2 or 3 minutes. After that, she was released, she went back into her house and she was free to go about her business.

Burdick asks why Casey was handcuffed, and the witness says that while Casey was in the house her mother had approached him and informed him that Casey had stolen her……

At this point Mason objects and Burdick says that the defense opened the door. This causes a sidebar. Then a legal matter that forces the jury back into the holding area.

The state then questions the witness outside the presence of the jury. She asks why the witness put handcuffs on Casey. He says that Cindy Anthony approached him with receipts saying that Casey had stolen her credit card and made fraudulent purchases and that she wanted to press charges. The officer then went into the house, got Casey, handcuffed her and brought her to his squad car to continue the investigation of the fraudulent use of credit cards. That’s when his Sgt. Said that they weren’t going to worry about these alleged crimes right then, that the kidnapping took precedence. He ordered the witness to take the cuffs off of Casey, and he did.

This happened after Casey did her written statement at 1 am. And before Melich arrived at 4 am.

The defense pleads to the court that the defendant isn’t on trial for these charges and they are not relevant.

The judge says that the defense elicited the testimony that the defendant was in handcuffs, and wants that information to be put to the jury with absolutely no explanation as to why. Which opens the door for this particular testimony. The court will fashion a jury instruction that deals with this, and he writes up a curative instruction.

“The evidence which you are about to hear concerning the reasons for the handcuffing of Miss Casey Anfony, is solely to explain why the deputy took those actions and is not to be considered for any other purpose. The defendant is not on trial for those acts and you should not consider this evidence for any other purpose than to explain why the deputy handcuffed the defendant.”

Burdick then continues to question the deputy. She has him explain that Cindy wanted Casey arrested for the fraudulent use of her credit cards, and that his sergeant later ordered him to take the handcuffs off.

Yuri Melich showed up after this. He was not present during any of this.

The deputy is excused.

The defense’s next witness is Corporal Eric Edwards. He is a Corporal with the Orange County Sheriff’s department. He was one of the lead detectives in this case – or, as he says, he “assisted a great deal.” Masons asks if he knows a “Linda Tinelli” – which causes a side bar, and then causes the jury to be sent out yet again for a “legal matter”.

When the jury has left, Mason proffers the witness. He again asks if the Detective knows a “Linda Tinelli” The detective says he met her through the investigation. Tinelli was brought to the witness’s attention by a woman named Lori Cree, who was a volunteer from Texas EquuSearch. He doesn’t remember the date – but it was about December when they visited Texas EquuSearch and he got a call from Lori Cree, bringing Linda Tinelli to his attention. Tinelli was a volunteer at the KidsFinder tent. Tinelli spent a great deal of time at the tent with the Anthony’s. The witness thinks that her role was to keep the sheets with the list of volunteers.

Lori Cree told the witness that Linda Tinelli had mentioned George Anthony brought duct tape to the KidsFinder tent. This is one reason that the OCSD deposed Miss Tinelli.

The witness says that he showed either a video or a still picture form the video to Miss Tinelli. He showed her the missing photo that depicted Caylee that had duct tape on it to fasten it to the tent pole. She didn’t specifically identify the tape as the tape that George had.

The witness doesn’t remember when he drove out to meet with her again, but he does remember driving out with Det Allen to talk to her about some correspondence or communication she had had with the Anthony’s. Mason asks the witness if this was in March 2009. The Detective says it was.

During this visit the detectives wanted to place a bug/listening device in her lamp in her living room, with the intention of having her invite George and/or Cindy to her house to speak with her and try to capture their conversation.

The detective says that this is so, that the Anthony’s had been contacting her. They wanted to meet with her and talk to her. Miss Tinelli had visited the Anthony home previously and mentioned to the Anthony’s that the police had spoken to her. After this, the Anthony’s were persistent in talking with her and repeatedly asking to meet with Miss Tinelli. The OCSD had concerns with what the Anthony’s might ask her to say.

Miss Tinelli was uncomfortable with the whole “listening device” thing, because she would have to get her husband’s permission to do that. She felt it was a little intrusive into her personal life – so they never did it. They did talk about the possibility of her wearing a wire when she spoke to the Anthony’s. But she never did that, either.

The state has no questions on the proffer

Mr. Mason has a few more questions – regarding a phone message that Cindy left on Miss Tinelli’s phone. Or maybe it was George that left the message – but he thinks it was Cindy.

Mason is through.

The judge asks Mason what material fact this evidence tends to prove or disprove – or what relevancy it has to the defense theory. Mason asks how much time he has.

Mason says that it shows that the prosecution was focused not just at the defendant on trial, but also at others, because of the processes of the law enforcement investigators.

The judge asks part two of the questions: what does this have to do with the theory of the defense? Mason says that the defense theory, as laid out to the judge earlier – the dysfunctionality and the circumstances involving what happened after the accidental drowning and who did what in an effort to conceal or to cover that up. The investigation carried on in that regard and the detectives in the case were so involved in going down that road that they asked a woman on two occasions to wear a wire and record the conversations with the Anthony’s to try and get incriminating statements from the parents.

The judge asks Mason if the detectives were successful in getting incriminating statements from the parents.

Mason says no, they weren’t. Because after being asked twice to record conversations with the Anthony’s, she refused to do it. Otherwise, all she’d be able to testify to is what is already in evidence about the duct tape.

The judge asks for comments form the state on the proffer. Burdick says that it is obvious from the proffer, as well as what was argued at sidebar, that this line of questioning is offered only for the purpose of inviting the jury to speculate on the motives of law enforcement, without ever asking what their motivation was to do something, because their motivation would be irrelevant, since their motivation does not relate to any material facts regarding Casey Anthony’s guilt or innocence.

Mason says that it’s interesting that the objection is speculation – since we are expected to speculate about the murder weapon being duct tape.

The judge rules that the evidence is not relative – either to the theory of the defense’s case or to any material facto of the case. The state’s objection is sustained.

The judge asks about the next witness – he doesn’t’ know who the next witness is and what she is going to testify about. If there are going to be “issues” he’d much rather take them up now then have the jury going in and out of the courtroom or sit through endless sidebars.

Burdick gets up and says to the judge that the State objects to the next witness’s testimony on the basis of relevancy. This witness was at a command center at some unknown date and time and saw George Anthony with duct tape that cannot be further identified. This testimony is of no material value. If she could say it was a particular brand of duct tape, the state would not object, but that’s not what she is going to say.

The judge says “but she can say it’s duct tape.”

Burdick says “…but that doesn’t establish any relevance.”

“You’re saying it’s not relevant because she can’t say what brand it is?”

“Or identify when shown a specific brand to say that’s what was used.”

The judge says “So, are you saying to whenever the state of Florida sees someone with a gun or a knife and can’t say for certain what type of gun or knife it was, and a victim in a murder case was killed with a gun or knife, that evidence is not admissible.”

“Not unless we can tie it in to some relevant time frame that would establish materiality. The fact that someone possessed a gun or a knife would never be admissible unless it could be tied in to a relevant time frame.”

“Well, isn’t she going to testify it was at a volunteer tent?” The defense says yes, this is what she will testify to.

The judge rules then that it would only go to whatever weight the jury will assign it. The judge says he thinks that the defense would like it very much if this is the position the state would hold – since most witnesses can’t identify a serial number of a gun, or even distinguish between a rifle and a semi-automatic. All they can tell you is that somebody stuck a gun in their face and robbed them at gunpoint. But that’s a debate for another time….

The judge says the testimony is admissible.

The defense calls Linda Tinelli. She says that she knows George and Cindy Anthony. When Caylee went missing, the Anthony’s had a command center. She went down there to offer her help as a volunteer. She coordinated the table where they took donations and handed out t-shirts, pins and bracelets. She worked the table with George Anthony. This was towards the end of July until December. The last day was December 8th. She says that there was duct tape at the table. It was used to tape down the tablecloths when it was windy and put up posters of missing children.

Mason is done direct. And the witness is excused.

The defense calls Yuri Melich. Again. Melich testifies that in his role as lead detective – he had a supervisor, but was in charge of the case. He was called to the Anthony home it was the early morning hours of July 16th. At some point someone pointed out the smell in the car. George Anthony was the one who pointed it out,. At that time Melich didn’t do anything with that information. He had the car towed to the central operations center later in the day.

He was at the home in the early morning hours, spent an hour or so there taking the original taped statement, left with Casey to show him the locations of the babysitters homes, came back and dropped Casey off and left again. As he was leaving, he had contact with George Anthony, who approached Melich while he was in his car getting ready to leave. Melich left at around 7 in the morning. Then he met with Casey at around noon at Universal Studios. He thinks there were two or three uniformed officers at the Anthony home while he was there.

Melich did not confiscate the car until after Casey was arrested. He made arrangements with Mr. Anthony to pick up the car and items that were in the car or had been in the car.

Baez points out that it wasn’t until Casey was under arrest that they decided to go and gather evidence from the car.

Baez asks if the reason Melich arrested Casey was because he thought she might harm herself. Melich says he arrested her because she met the elements of the crime that she was arrested for. And yes, based on another case that was in the media at the time, He thought that she might harm herself.

Baez says – “So based on media coverage of another case, you arrested her?”

Melich says again, that she fulfilled the elements of the crime that she was arrested for, but he did have this in his mind and that helped him to decide to actually make a physical arrest.

Baez asks if, after Casey was arrested, the focus went to the car. Melich says that the focus was always on the missing or kidnapped child, but yes, they did focus their attention on the car, but it wasn’t the sole point at that time.

Baez asks if the detective wanted to do a thorough job and look at every possible scenario – Melich of course, says yes, but, keeping in mind that they were going off of what they were told had happened. And this included that the child was kidnapped by a known individual, and they had all these other names to go with it.

Baez asks if they were also told by everyone in the house that the child went missing on June 9th. Melich agrees that they all said that initially, even George Anthony. Within a few days they found this not to be correct, and that the correct date was June 16th.

Baez asks if they had in their possession at that time all the information on Zanny the Nanny. Melich says he doesn’t know if they had all the information – they had what Casey and the rest of the family told them about this person the nanny – the kidnapper. But they had yet to talk to friends and other people that she was associated with – these outcry witnesses to tell the detectives who this Zanny person was.

Baez asks if shortly after the investigation began they were able to determine that this Zanny person didn’t exist. Melich says that he wouldn’t say “shortly after” – it took a while because Casey never changed her story about the nanny being the kidnapper. In communications that Melich monitored between her and her family at the jail, she was still talking about the nanny. So he wouldn’t say “shortly”. Ultimately they came to believe that this nanny didn’t exist, but he can’t pinpoint a day that he came to believe this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Melich testifies that he had no contact with the Anthony family before this date. And in July of 2008, he subpoenaed Casey Anthony’s cell phone records. Baez asks if he could have also subpoenaed George Anthony’s cell phone records. Melich says that he ultimately did subpoena George’s cell phone records. Baez asks for what time period he subpoenaed George’s cell phone records. He doesn’t recall exactly for what period. He says he subpoenaed the records for multiple periods – including June and July.

Baez acts surprised. He asks if Melich gave those records to prosecutors. Melich says yes – but then he thinks and says maybe he’s thinking of home phone records. He’s not sure what periods of cell phone records were actually subpoenaed.

Baez tries to clarify – so the detective subpoenaed the home phone records for June and July – but not George’s cell phone records? The detective doesn’t recall.

Melich testifies that cell phone records can tell someone the calls placed, received, the duration of those calls and the tower which carried that call – which is useful in pinpointing the location of a person.

Baez asks if he used Casey’s cell phone records to track her location. And Melich says yes, he used her cell phone records to track her movements. Melich says yes, at the beginning of the investigation when they first received the cell phone records, they charted her tower locations. They did not do that for George, Cindy or Lee.

Baez asks if the only person they focused in on with the cell records was Casey. Melich says no – he’s actually pulled cell records and tracked locations for at least one other person he can think of – the person who called in the finding of the remains.

Baez seizes on the “person who found the remains” and says “Ahhh…yes…that would be Roy Kronk, right?” Melich says yes.

Melich testifies that yes, Roy Kronk found the remains on December 11th, 2008. He called his communications office, and they called 911. Upon this call, Melich went to the scene at Suburban Drive and, ultimately, interviewed Roy Kronk. This call was tape recorded to preserve the integrity of the conversation.

Baez asks when Melich first became aware that Kronk had made prior 911 calls about this site – which gets a sidebar.

When the sidebar is complete, Baez asks Melich if, during the month of August, Melich was approached by Officer Gerald White about a tip on Suburban Drive. Melich says yes. Melich says the tip was very general. They had already sent a cadaver dog in that general area, so Melich told the officer that the area had been searched. So that tip was not followed up on.

Melich subpoenaed Roy Kronk’s phone records – he cannot remember exactly for what time periods. He thinks he got those records for June through December. He didn’t create a report or turn these records over to MBI to create a report the way he did with Casey Anthony’s cell phone records. He used the cell tower information only to answer some questions that he had regarding where the cell phone was at a particular time.

Baez asks the detective about the duct tape found near the remains of Caylee. Melich remembers the fact that several months later there was a video television report that made note of the fact that there was duct tape found at the command center that George Anthony was running. Melich noted from that TV report that the duct tape at the command center appeared to have the same markings as the duct tape found near the remains of the body.

Baez asks the detective when and where he went back to George Anthony to ask him where he got this duct tape. Melich says he didn’t.

After this TV report, Melich was also made aware that the gas can had the same duct tape on it.

Baez points out that the detective had evidence that duct tape was found near the remains of Caylee – Melich adds “and on the remains as well” – and he knew that he had duct tape on the can – and he knew that there was no other duct tape in the house. Melich says that yes, at the time of their search warrant there was none. Baez says “and the only other time you ever saw this duct tape was on this video?” Melich says yes.

Baez points out that there are three different locations, three different pieces of this same duct tape.

Baez asks if Melich interviewed George Anthony on July 30th, 2008. Melich says yes. Baez tries to get the witness to say that George reported the gas cans as stolen at that time and that Melich went to retrieve them the next day – but he doesn’t know how to elicit that information through proper questioning and the state keeps getting their objections sustained.

Baez asks Melich if, in addition to the cell phone records from June through December, he also confiscated Roy Kronk’s computer. Melich says no. Baez asks why not – doesn’t that generally yield all kinds of information? Melich says sure.

Baez asks what other investigation he did on Roy Kronk. Melich says he interviewed his co-workers and took his statement.

Baez is done.

Burdick crosses. She asks about the tip that was received in August. Melich had testified that the tip was “general in nature”. Burdick asks if it mentioned Suburban Drive. Melich says yes. The tip said “swampy area crossing a 6 foot fence.” Melich knew at that time that Suburban Drive was very close to the Anthony home, but most of the police focus was at the far East side of Suburban Drive where it dead ends into the school and a wooded area. The area where Caylee was ultimately found was much closer to the Anthony home than to the school area.

So when Melich was brought this tip by Gerald White, he believed that it was referring to the end of Suburban Drive – the wooded area – that had been completely searched. And that cadaver dogs had been sent to this area.

Melich is excused.

The judge excuses the jury for the day.

After the jury is excused, the Judge asks Baez if there is any information on when he will be winding up his presentation. Baez says he believes that will be Wednesday and Thursday. The state estimates they will need two days for rebuttal.

The judge asks how long they will be requesting for closing arguments – and Baez says that brings up an interesting issue. The state had requested in a pretrial motion to split up the argument between lawyers. This would give the state the opportunity to have 4 chances at arguing closing arguments. The defense would object to this structure. Baez wants to know if this is going to be allowed so that the defense knows how to proceed.

The judge wants to know how Baez gets “4 closing arguments” out of splitting up the argument between attorneys

Baez says that they essentially get 4 – one lawyer gets up and talks, then another lawyer gets up and talks….that’s two. Then the defense argues…then the state sends up two more lawyers again – that’s 4.

The judge says he wouldn’t allow two lawyers to split the rebuttal state argument. He can understand 2 lawyers splitting the initial closing argument, but there’s no need for two lawyers on the rebuttal argument.

Ashton offers that the defense could split their argument, as well, so essentially they could have 2 closings.

The state says they will need one day for closings. Baez gets up and says “I was expecting less….” The judge says “How much time, Mr. Baez? Half a day, or until the jury goes to sleep…whichever occurs first.”

The judge says he will give the parties an order on Monday dealing with closing arguments with some basic parameters.

Baez then has some discovery violations he would like to talk about. He says that Melich just testified that he subpoenaed six months worth of Roy Kronk’s cell phone records. The defense had only received 2 weeks worth. If Melich was testifying truthfully, this is a major violation. Melich also testified that he had George Anthony’s cell phone records for the same period – the defense doesn’t have those, either.

(I’m betting Melich was simply mistaken – he said several times “I’m not sure, I don’t know without looking at the subpoena…”)

Burdick says she will inquire of Mr. Melich if there are items in his possession that were not turned over to the state.

Burdick says that Mr. Baez is the one that turned over the Anthony family cell phone records to the state, but if he thinks that Mr. Melich has something that the defense doesn’t have, she will inquire of Melich. And she is willing to work with Baez to compare what they have, but there was certainly no intentional discovery violations.

They then take up the matter of the curative instruction regarding Dr. Rodriguez.

The defense has proposed an instruction that states that Dr. Rodriguez cannot resume his testimony because his employer, the Department of Defense, will not allow him to. The state says that this is not entirely accurate. Ashton says that the accurate fact is that his testimony is prohibited due to the rules and regulations of the department of the defense, therefore he was testifying in violation of those rules, and would not be permitted to do so.

Ashton says he doesn’t think the defense would necessarily want that before the jury in that form, so they should come up with some new instruction, since the defense could have subpoenaed him, since he was here, and they chose not to do that. Ashton says he applauds the defense for not choosing to ruin this mans life over it, but they didn’t subpoena him.

Ashton says that a more appropriate instruction would be that he simply is withdrawn as a witness, and that the jury should disregard any testimony he gave.

Mason says that it was Ashton who got a call from the department of defense saying that the witness would be terminated if he testified. Yeah, we could have forced him to stay, we could have identified him as a material witness and had your honor put him in jail (the judge says “that’s true!”) but we weren’t going to do that. I don’t want this instruction to read like he just withdrew – because that’s not the case, the judge was there, and understands the situation.

The judge asks if it is not true that he did not get his employers permission to testify. Mason and Baez both say that they don’t know that. All we know for sure is that he started his testimony, we had a break, Mr. Ashton took his deposition, and then the next thing we know Mr. Ashton gets a call from the department of defense on a Saturday that has the witness shaking in his boots that he’s going to be fired.

Ashton gets up and says let me clarify this implication that the defense is making. Ashton says he got a call from this guy’s employer – a Captain Malick. Ashton says he did not solicit contact with this person. He said that they had learned of Dr. Rodriguez’s testimony by seeing it on television, and that it was in violation of department of defense regulations. That he did not seek their permission and that he was ordered to return home. If he testified, he would be fired. Ashton says he informed the court and defense counsel of this in a private conversation so that the witness would not lose his job over this. Any implication in defense’s comments that I contacted them is 100% false.

Baez says that there is more to this story, since Ashton requested an additional 24 hours to review a deposition that he just took, knowing full well that Mr. Rodriguez was in the hot seat. Baez says they are going to have a motion with regards to that forthcoming, but that their proposed instruction is the most accurate with regards to what transpired.

Ashton says that he is the most accurate with the regards to what transpired, and that all of this is facts that are not in front of the court and that the court simply needs to say that he witness is withdrawn which is factually and legally accurate, and leave it at that. If counsel wants to file something under oath – bring it on. Baez says “we will.”

The judge says that in order for him to craft something that includes facts not before him, they are going to need to have the witnesses’ captain testify. He doesn’t have to do it in person, they can do it over a break, or before or after court hours. And we can find out if that is a regulation by the Department of Defense and whether or not the doctor sought permission to do this. The judge offered to have Mr. Rodriquez held over until Monday, since he was within the jurisdiction of the court. And the judge had also said that if anyone felt that the witness would have fled the jurisdiction despite the court’s verbal order, that he would have had him held at the Orange County Jail until such time that he could testify. The defense then said that they would allow the witness to leave, that they had another expert who could testify to basically the same thing. The judge says that if they are going to tell the story that they are going to tell the complete story. Or, they can tell the benign, that his testimony is stricken and they are to disregard it. And that will be end of story.

The judge says he will have proposed jury instructions for the parties on Tuesday. Since the defense may end on Wednesday, the judge wants the state to have proposed witnesses on hand ready to testify. The judge doesn’t know if he wants to have the jury begin deliberations on a Friday evening. He may want them to start Saturday morning. He may have them deliberating until 6:30-7:00, but he has to keep them separated from that point on. Instructions will probably be 45 minutes.

Just from memory – the judge believes that at this point he is instructing the jury on several lesser, included charges. (Depending on renewed motions for DV – directed verdict) On count one – he is instructing on First Degree Murder, Felony Murder, Second Degree murder, Manslaughter, Count 2 – Aggravated Child Abuse, Child Abuse, Battery (he thinks), Under aggravated manslaughter, no lesser, because there will be an instruction on interlocking verdicts. And there are no lesser for providing false information to law enforcement.

The judge tells the attorney’s to think about any other lesser they may want to ask for.

And now I’m adding pictures – mostly for my friend Jill. She’s Canadian.

Today court starts with a “quick” sidebar. Then we have the defense’s first witness of the day. – Susan Mears – who just testified yesterday.

She is here to get the Gatorade Bottle, and what looks to the be the cardboard the syringe was in, the Disney bag, and after some back and forth – it’s determine she also has the syringe itself.

The items are entered into evidence and she is excused.

Next up is Stephen Shaw (again – this soap opera really needs some new actors.) He is again accepted as an expert in trace evidence hair and fibers.

Remember this guy’s dead hair study? The one where he left hairs in the car and on the windowsills and in trunks? Yeah, that guy and that study.

Baez shows him some pictures of his hairs. The ones he studied and took pictures of. He had 600 hairs form 15 individuals as samples he ran the study on. He was trying to determine if the post mortem root banding he saw on dead people’s hair could be replicated in live individuals. He had based this study on a master’s thesis from someone at John Jay College who had suggested that additional research was needed in the area.

Baez shows the witness the witness’s big visual aid to the characteristics of post mortem root banding. Then Baez shows the witness a slide of a hair taken from a living individual that was stored in water for 17 days. It is one of the hairs that one of the two examiners who examined all the hairs in the study and gave their opinions on initially mis-identified as showing post mortem banding.

Baez then shows the witness the other hair that was misidentified as having post mortem banding by the other examiner. Each of the two examiners had initially identified one ante-mortem hair as a post mortem hair in their initial examination. Later, when they did the second portion of the examination and conferred with each other, they correctly identified both hairs as not showing root banding.

Baez tries to convince the witness that he ante-mortem hairs really do look a lot like the post mortem root banded hairs, but the witness says that he sees huge differences and that they look nothing alike. Beats me. They just look like hairs with black stuff on them to me. I can’t tell if one is banded because it’s above the root tip or in the middle of the root tip or submerged in water for 17 days or in the trunk of a car. They just look like hairs with black stuff.

The witness testifies that there are no other studies currently being done at the FBI on this subject with living individuals. But he witness continues to study the subject.

Baez then directs the witness to his report dated January 27th, 2009. This is the report he wrote after examining the hair mass and the three pieces of duct tape. He found hairs on the duct tape, and all of them were consistent with the hairs in the hair mass.

He also recovered textile fibers, but he did not test them.

On Cross – Ashton has the witness repeat the all o the hairs found on the duct tape came from the same person that the hair mass came from.

Ashton then points out that all of the slides that Baez showed him of the hairs were just a small sample from the hairs he studied. Ashton points out that none of the hairs that Baez showed him were the hairs that the witness out in car trunks and studied.

And now, despite the fact that Baez objected to the never ending power point presentation being introduced during the state’s case in chief (based on a discovery violation – the defense only got black and white photos – not color ones, like in the presentation), Baez has just opened the door to the prosecution going through the entire thing with the witness the way they wanted to begin with. Now the jury gets to see every damned hair in all its glory – sitting in dirt, sitting on windowsills, sitting in cars, sitting in trunks.

And the long and short of it is that absolutely none of the hairs – at all – showed decompositional post mortem banding no matter where they sat, no matter how long they sat (7 months in some cases), and no matter how much direct sunlight they were exposed to.

The power point presentation – and Ashton – are done.

Baez gets up and asks the witness if he put the hairs in garbage. The witness didn’t. And why that would make a difference I have no clue. I can’t imagine the garbage giving off some magical power to turn ante-mortem hairs into post –mortem hairs.

Baez also notes that in the captions on the pictures in the power point presentation, the hairs from the living people have the number of days before they were collected noted. But all the post mortem hairs don’t have any dates as to how many days they sat around before they were collected. The witness says yeah, he didn’t note that on the slides.

(Probably because, you know, they already had post mortem banding on them…sitting outside wasn’t going to take the banding away – so it wasn’t as important to note how many days it sat on the dashboard…)

Baez then goes through the slides asking what the environmental conditions were for the post mortem hairs – cars in the winter in Tennessee – obviously not summer in Florida – and even the hairs that were placed indoors, Baez makes a huge deal out of the fact that Shaw doesn’t know if they had heat or air conditioning.

The witness says that he didn’t replicate the conditions in this case – in fact; he doesn’t even know all the conditions in this case.

Baez asks if, one day, the science would develop enough and the witness would learn enough that this witness would hope to be able to pick up a hair and be able to tell if it’s from a dead person. The witness doesn’t fall for this, and says “Post mortem banding is based in science – I’m just trying to learn more. I tried to replicate post mortem banding in this study – I put hairs in dirt, where I thought decomposition would occur, I put hairs in hot cars purposefully in direct sunlight. I couldn’t replicate post mortem banding. This is a well established science because of the work of experienced scientists in this field. I don’t “hope” to do anything but learn more.”

Baez kept on goading him saying “Yeah, but one day you’d like to know what environmental factors play a role in this post mortem banding and be able to pick up a hair and be able to tell it’s from a dead person.” The witness again doesn’t fall for it and instead says “There are hundreds of forensic scientists who work with these hairs every day in forensic cases that include all kinds of environmental factors.”

Ashton gets up to questions the witness again. He asks the witness if the hairs that he bases his opinions on are just these hairs from the winter in Tennessee – or the millions of hairs from all the literature and all over the world. The witness says all the hairs from all over.

And it’s hard to remember that this witness is a defense witness.

The witness is excused.

The defense’s next witness is Dr. Barry Logan. He is a forensic toxicologist and analytical chemist. He is from Scotland. He has been practicing about 27 years. He runs a Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer daily –and has for the last 27 years. He also teaches classes on how to use it. Currently he works for NMS labs. He is the national director for their forensic services. They are one of the largest forensic labs in the United States. Their lab is accredited, which is kind of like a person being certified. A person is certified, a lab is accredited.

He is offered as an expert in like 1,900 areas. Analytical Chemistry, Toxicology, Forensic Science, laboratory accreditation standards, Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometer and Cryotrapping.

The prosecution accepts him as an expert in Forensic Toxicology, but they want to voir dire on the other areas. (This could take all day…..)

Ashton asks what kind of analytical chemistry the witness performs besides that related to toxicology. The witness says it’s hard to separate the two. He says that his lab performs other testing besides forensic applications. The witness explains that toxicology is the study of biological samples- he runs chemical analysis on materials that are not biological in nature, although they might be in a forensic setting.

Ashton says then that the witness would agree his experience is limited to toxicology applications or supervising people who might be looking for drugs.

The witness says not everything they look for is drugs – it might be industrial chemicals, for instance, or poisons. Ashton says “Yes, but you don’t supervise that lab – you supervise the toxicology lab.” Ashton says that Analytical Chemistry is a very broad field – hugely broad. He asks the witness if the witness thinks of himself as an expert in every area of analytical chemistry. The witness gives up and says no, he doesn’t.

Ashton continues that this witness’s expertise is really limited to toxicology, isn’t it? The witness says that that is where the bulk of his experience is. Ashton asks if this witness’s last experience with cryotrapping was in graduate school – over 20 years ago. The witness admits it is. Ashton asks the witness to confirm that he is not an expert in all areas of forensic science. The witness confirms this.

Ashton tells the court that he would object to this witness being certified as an expert in anything other than forensic toxicology.

Sims starts pleading to the court at the lectern – saying that this witness has a degree in chemistry with honors – and the judge says if it’s going to be a long one, she can come to sidebar.

Sims wants to ask the witness one questions – the judge grants her leave to do so. She asks the witness what exactly his duties were when he served as the Vice President of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences with regards to all the disciplines that this organization oversees. He says that he served on the board of the organization. The board promotes scholarships, research and education within the community of the forensic sciences – it is a way to bring all the disciplines together. (Which is mumbo-junbo, you know. That’s like some guy who sits on the board of Budweiser being certified as an expert in Beer Making. He’s not. He may have a passing acquaintance with the process, but chances are he couldn’t work the factory line of Budweiser.)

The judge must think so, too. He accepts the witness only as an expert in the field of forensic toxicology. I hope that Sims legal pad she keeps writing on isn’t filled up with questions about the shoddy lab work over at the Body Farm – you know that’s why she wanted this witness certified in accreditation practices, right?

But, Sims soldiers on with what little she has to work with now. She asks the doctor if he uses the Gas Chromatograph in his lab (since he’s no longer an expert in it, as she wanted him to be…) He says he uses it.

She asks what materials he received and reviewed in this particular case. He says that he received some analytical reports from the FBI lab with respect to some evidence that was collected from the trunk of Casey’s vehicle. He also received a series of reports from the scientists at the body farm, also related to chemical evaluations done on material from the trunk of the vehicle. He also received miscellaneous other documents related to the investigation, including the autopsy reports. He wasn’t provided any articles, but he did read articles on his own.

He reviewed the 2008 article by Dr. Vass about his decompositional studies and the odors.

She then wants to go over some forensic lab stuff (and if she gets into accreditation and procedure – you know she’s going to get shut down….) And Ashton asks for a sidebar before she even spits out the unabbreviated form of ASCLAD.

After the sidebar, about the only question she gets to ask without being objected to on this topic is the very broad “what is the difference between a forensic lab and a research lab?”

The doctor says that a forensic lab is one that does analysis simply for the purpose of it being presented in a court of law or some kind of administrative review board. Forensic labs can do research, this helps them to develop new and improved ways of testing for things that haven’t been able to be detected in the past. Research labs are generally academic labs whose mission is to discover new things where their application isn’t necessarily clear of what the ultimate value will be. They make discoveries that may have applications in medicine, technology or space travel, in any variety of different fields based on discoveries of new compounds or chemicals or objects.

She then asks what validation testing is. The doctor says that when a laboratory develops a new test, before they start applying it, particularly in a forensic laboratory when you are dealing with evidence, the test has to be fully characterized, to figure out what its level of sensitivity is, whether there are things that could interfere with it to cause a false positive result, if there are limitations to the test that would cause it to fail to find what it was developed to test for (a false negative), and then you have to decide what materials are suitable to apply the test to.

Sims asks the witness if validation studies were done on the materials he reviewed from the Oak Ridge Lab. Ashton objects (basis of knowledge) and the doctor refers to his notes to determine if he knows whether or not validation tests were done. He reviewed all the bench notes by Dr. Vass and Dr. Wise, and the depositions that they both gave. After he reviewed all the bench notes, he reached a conclusion on what they had done – but being just an expert in Toxicology, he isn’t allowed to share his conclusion (ha!) When Sims asks again, in a different form of the question, whether there were validation studies done on the methodology Vass used, there is a sidebar.

When they come back from sidebar, she asks Dr. Logan if there were established published protocols for the tests that Vass did. He says that there were no formal protocols on the tests that were run. Sims asks if a test is run outside of established protocols what kinds of problems can occur. The doctor says that if you conduct testing without established protocols, that there is no way to ensure that the test is going to be conducted in the same way every time, to ensure that the results can be replicated, that the instrument is going to be set up correctly to do the test, whether there are things that could produce false positives or false negatives with the test. If there are no written procedures or protocols, there’s no way to ensure that two people doing the test on different days are going to get the same results. For a reliable test it’s critical that you have a written procedure.

The doctor also testifies that the written report does not outline any protections or precautions that may have been taken to avoid contamination. He also saw no evidence of any quality assurance protocols. And there was no proficiency testing or blind testing referenced. And there was no mention of control samples.

After asking about 40 questions in a row that are meant to denigrate the testing of Dr. Vass, and which are deemed “outside the witness’s expertise”, Dr. Logan is allowed to testify about what “blank samples” are. He says that they are samples that are known not to contain the chemical that you are testing for. Logan says that if you run a blank sample but the machine isn’t calibrated correctly, you won’t get reliable results. (This is to try and cast doubts on the results because of Dr. Wise’s “mistakes” and all those entries with the asterisks next to them.). If you are running a blank sample and the sample shows positive, it means that you have either contamination or a problem with the way the test was performed.

Sims then goes through every little “asterisk” in Dr. Wise’s notes, asking what the significance is of every “mistake” Dr. Wise made. The problem is that these questions are rather disingenuous. Dr. Wise knew they were a screw up, that’s why he notes them with little “asterisks”. I would think this testimony would have a greater impact if Dr. Wise hadn’t already identified them as “mistakes” in his notes. It’s not as though those tests with the “asterisks” attached were counted in the final results. Those were the runs that were discarded and redone. The whole line of questioning is silly.

Sims then asks the witness about fatty aids. (Specifically the ones found on the paper towels that were identified as adipocere by Dr. Vass when Dr. Haskell sent him the samples….) The witness says that these fatty acids are also found in bleach products, dairy products (cheese, butter and milk), and animal and plant materials. Sims asks him, as a toxicologist, what conclusions he would reach if he tested say….a paper towel….and he found the presence of these four fatty acids – oleic acid, palmitic acid, stearic acid and myristic acid. He aid he would conclude they were on the paper towel. Which, you know, that’s not really an answer.

Sims then asks him what the ratio of fatty acids is in a meat pizza. That was deemed “outside his area of expertise”, too. And you can tell the doctor is getting really, really pissed at not being able to answer questions he obviously knows the answers to. I’m betting the next time someone says to him “You aren’t an expert in all areas of forensics, are you, sir?” He’s not going to give in and say “no”. He’s going to tell them “Fuck yes! I am! I know the ratios of fatty acids in pizza!!”

Sims asks the doctor if he’s read published materials that would estimate the amount of fatty acids in pizza (really? There are published studies about this? Who knew?) He replies that he has reviewed the ratios of fatty acids in foodstuffs, including pizza. When Sims asks what his conclusions are – Ashton says he has multiple objections. They go to sidebar and then to lunch. If the doctor comes back after lunch for more of this, he’s a fool.

Yeah, he comes back. I hope he’s being paid really, really well for this. He has to be humiliated. Poor guy.

Sims only has one more question for the Doctor – she asks him where the 4 fatty acids in this case were found. He says on a paper towel.

Ashton gets up to cross. He asks the doctor if the doctor is saying that all 4 of these fatty acids are found in combination in vegetable materials. The doctor says “huh” and Ashton asks again if al these fatty acids are found in vegetable material all together and the doctor says yes. Ashton asks what vegetables? And the doctor says “oily ones – like palm oil”. And Ashton says “OK – but not like cabbage. Not like that kind of vegetable.” Ashton says “And they are also present in decomposing animal fat, right?” And the doctor agrees that they are.

Ashton asks if the carbon atom chain in adipocere and dairy products is the same. The doctor replies that adipocere and dairy products both contain the same fatty acids. Both contain the 4 they have been discussing. And they both contain other fatty acids. Ashton asks if it’s true that the carbon chains for milk cheese and butter is 4-10 carbons long and the one for adipocere is 14-18 carbons long. The doctor explains the lengths of the carbon chains (and I don’t think Ashton knows what he’s talking about, here….. The carbon chains can be hundreds of molecules longer in one compound than another – yet they can be closely related. I don’t think Ashton quite knows the complexities…) The doctor only answers Ashton “The chains are quite complex.” Which ain’t no lie.

Ashton asks if there are other compounds that are in adipocere that aren’t in butter and milk – and Logan says yes. Ashton then asks if it’s possible to determine the difference, then, with chemical analysis. The doctor says yes, if these other compounds are tested for.

Ashton then has the witness testify that it’s not unusual for there to be special challenges when using the GCMS in analyzing evidence, particularly forensic samples, since they are rarely pure. The witness says that they have set protocols, which helps with some of the challenges. Ashton asks the witness what a scientist should do when faced with challenges that are not covered in the protocols. Dr. Logan says the scientist should develop new protocols, or adjust the existing protocol to accommodate the special challenge. Ashton asks if this is an acceptable scientific procedure, and Logan says yes.

Ashton asks if the protocols for testing decompositional odors are published. The doctor says that the principles are published, but not how the test is performed. Ashton asks – so the steps are not published, how to run the tests step by step, how to set up the triple sorb filters, what the settings should be on the GCMS? The doctor says some of those things are in the literature – but not all of them.

Ashton then asks about blanks – he asks if blanks are room air with the same ambient chemicals present in the testing area. The doctor says that’s one example. Ashton asks what a scientist should do if a blank shows some unexpected results. The doctor says one should investigate that – to see if it is contamination or if the machine is set up improperly. Then re-test the sample to make sure it gives the proper result. Ashton says “OK, so the proper procedure is to stop what you are doing, correct he problem and then run the test again?” (Which is kind of what Wise did….only when he followed this “proper procedure – it gets dragged into court as “mistakes” invalidating all of his results……)

Ashton then asks the doctor precisely that – “OK – so from the bench notes you read, that’s exactly what occurred in this case, right?” Logan says “Well, the bench notes contained Wise or Vass’s opinion as to why the test failed and then what they did to make sure the test worked the next time…” (Which I guess is a yes…)

Ashton is done with the witness – Sims on re-direct. She asks about the word ”challenges” as Ashton used it in his questioning and what it meant to Dr. Logan. Logan says he took it to mean something that was unusual or unexpected about the sample that was being tested. Sims asks if there are any protocols in the literature about how to collect air from the trunk of a car. The witness says no. Sims asks if there are protocols about how to collect carpet from the trunk of a car – how thick it needs to be, or how big that sample needs to be.

Sims then asks if this doctor, based on the reports from Wise and Vass can replicate the testing that they did. The doctor says no. Sims asks why that is, and the doctor says there is a lot of detail missing, either from the bench notes or from the original journal article itself, about what the expected sensitivity of the test is, what other causes there could be from identified chemicals, so if he did the test there would be no way to know if that was the same way Oak Ridge did the test.

Sims is through. Ashton gets back up for re-cross. He asks the doctor – “Your laboratory couldn’t do this test if you wanted to, could you?” The doctor says “Which test” and Ashton explains “the carpet test – your laboratory doesn’t do this testing.” The doctor says “We would be capable of doing that test.” Ashton says “All right….” And he goes and gets the 4 cans with the carpet samples in them. He puts them on the rail in front of the witness and says “Have you ever seen any of those?” The witness says no. Ashton asks the witness “If you have been sent one of those, could you have tested it?”

This causes a protracted sidebar and arguments. The state says that by virtue of the defense asking the witness if the witness would be able to replicate the test results, that this has opened the door for the state to ask if the witness tried to run the test- or even if he is capable of doing so,

The defense says no – that would mean that defendant’s couldn’t ask any witness about the replication of any test results. The witness said he couldn’t replicate the test – that doesn’t mean the state gets to shift the burden from the state to the defendant with regards to running tests.

The judge reads and looks into several cited cases – cases cited by both the state and the judge himself (I love this judge – he always cites case law).

The judge agrees with the defense and sustains the objection.

But he cautions the defense that they already addressed this issue in the Frye hearing. This witness was not certified as an expert in the area of testing air samples. If the line of questioning continues down the path it is headed – the defense is going to open the door- and it looks like Mr. Ashton has a Mack truck waiting to burst through it.

The defense asks for a curative instruction about how dramatically Mr. Ashton approached the witness with the evidence. The judge says this would cause an instant replay for the jury. They then ask for a curative instruction on the burden of proof. As an abundance of caution – the judge will give that.

Ashton then asks about his own line of questioning – and whether he can rebut the defense’s question of “can you replicate these test results” with a question of their own asking “why not?” The judge allows Ashton to proffer the witness – Ashton asks “Can you collect the air sample?” Witness says “yes” Ashton asks “Can you heat it overnight?” Witness says “Yes”. Ashton asks “can you put it into your GCMS at the right settings?” Witness says “no” Ashton asks “Why not?” and the witness says that there were no bench notes or notes in the Journal article saying at what settings to set the GCMS. Ashton says “there’s nothing in the notes?” And the witness says he will have to look. Ashton asks him to.

Then the judge kind of steps in, and Ashton says he will withdraw the quotation – and the judge says “No….the defense kind of went there.” Then he explains to the defense that if they want to impeach an expert’s testimony, the only way to do that is to have another expert give a different opinion. But now, see, what they have here is just a guy – not an expert – trying to rebut the expert’s opinion…that’s the problem with this whole line of questioning.” Now the judge is in a quandary and he doesn’t know what to do. He gives them a 10 minute recess to read more case law.

When they come back from break he gives the jury the curative instruction reminding them that it’s a well honored principle that the defendant doesn’t have to prove a thing or offer any witnesses – that it’s the state’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ashton then continues to question the witness asking if his laboratory performs air sample analysis. The witness confirms that his lab doesn’t do these tests. And the witness himself hasn’t performed these tests since he was a graduate student 20 years ago. The witness confirms this as well.

Ashton is done and the witness is excused.

Jennifer Welch is the next witness. Hopefully she has a cot set up somewhere in the courthouse. Baez asks the witness if there were any socks or shoes collected from the scene. She says no, there were none.

And that’s it.

I hope she didn’t have to come all the way across town for this.

The defense’s next witness is Cindy Anthony. Baez asks her if she used the computer that was at her home – the desktop. She says yes. He asks where this computer was kept and she says in the spare room – Lee’s old room. Baez asks who used that computer – and she says anyone that needed to – even friends of Casey’s that were at the house used the computer.

Baez then asks her if she did a search on the computer anytime in March that might have used the word “chloroform”. She says Yes – and the state’s premeditation goes out the window.

She says that the reason she did this search was that she originally was looking up chlorophyll – she was concerned about her smallest Yorkie puppy – she was tired all the time and both of the dogs were eating the bamboo leaves in the backyard, so she was looking up items that were in the back yard that might be making her puppy sick.

And here we go again with the bamboo in the back yard. First Casey is borrowing shovels to dig up bamboo roots, now here’s Cindy looking up bamboo causing chloroform on the computer. And the bamboo is innocently sitting in the backyard going “What the fuck, people???”

So she says that she started looking up chlorophyll and that prompted her to look up chloroform. And this is a crock of shit, you know, right? Because this bitch is a NURSE – and she doesn’t know how to spell chloroform? Remember, it was spelled wrong the first time. I don’t believe her for a minute. Which is sad. Because I’d hate to think she’s lying for her daughter. I understand that someone had to fall on the sword for Casey – and you know what that argument sounded like: George: “There is no way in hell I’m saying I molested her so she gets away with this – you’re just going to have to blow a hole in the premeditation thing and say you looked up chloroform.” Cindy:”And I can say I saw the ladder next to the pool, too!” George: “Ooooohhhh – good one, Cindy!” It’s not pretty, folks, but there’s absolutely no other way to explain this “falling on the sword” shit. This family puts the “fun” in “dysfunctional”.

Baez asks Cindy how the hell you confuse “chlorophyll” with “chloroform” and she says oh, no. She didn’t mix them up! If you look up chlorophyll, there are some bacteria that are associated with chlorophyll production, and looking that up, it comes from some different species of plants that have red and brown coloring. And that prompted her to look up chlorophyll (she says chlorophyll here – but I think she’s getting them mixed up – again – I think she meant to say chloroform here.) because some species of algae because some species of seaweed and algae and stuff produce chloroform.

Again – crock of shit. Why?? Because number one – this is the bitch that can’t remember details from the days and weeks after her granddaughter went missing – remember the whole “Oh I remember now because I changed my meds” thing? But she remembers in detail what colored flowers of algae and seaweed produce chloroform and chlorophyll three years later? Hell, I looked up the side effects of Paul’s new meds last week – fuck if I can remember what the medication was – or what the side effects are. Do you think I’ll remember three years from now what they were? Number two – why look up chloroform and chlorophyll because “seaweed and algae” produce it?? Didn’t she say she was concerned about her dogs eating something that was making them sick? Where the hell are they eating seaweed and algae in her backyard? They don’t live on the fucking ocean. That would be like Paul saying “I have a stomach ache” and me telling him “pregnancy can cause that – maybe that’s what you’ve got.” It’s fucking IRRELEVANT. It’s not germane to the issue. Just like looking up “seaweed and algae” because your dogs might be eating plants that make them sick.

Baez then asks Cindy how she knows she ran these searches in March, 2008. She says because she also ran a few other searches at the same time, there was a scare about using hand sanitizers around small children, it was in an email that went around her work. One of the nurses sent it to her knowing that Caylee could be affected. “And that scare came out in March”. Ummmm……no it didn’t – that scare came out in May of 2007. There was a Fox News Report on it at the same time. She says at the same time that she was looking up the stuff about he dogs, that she was looking up the ingredients in the hand sanitizer – “alcohol”. (Again – she’s a nurse and she has to look on the internet to see what “alcohol” is? But, then again, these are the same people that google “shovel”. I guess googling “alcohol” is no big deal.) But she says she was googling stuff she had in the house – like acetone, peroxide, rubbing alcohol.

Baez asks if she ran any other searches – ones that might have to do with injuries. Yes, she says a good friend of hers was in a car accident and had multiple head and chest injuries and she was looking up specific terminology that someone was asking her to look up (Really??? She’s a nurse and she has to look up “specific terminology” related to head and chest injuries?) She doesn’t have access to the internet at work (Sucks if you come in with chest and head injuries – I guess they won’t be able to google for the correct terminology to diagnose you.)

Baez says that it’s interesting that she brings up work – because they have her work records in evidence, and it seems that Cindy was at work on these days. She says yeah, but she would take days off during March because of important holidays in that month (St. Patricks’ Day?) Baez says “why would the work records show that you were working?” And Cindy says “it was an error, her supervisor might have just filled out her time card for her if she wasn’t there. “ Which makes no sense. Supervisor: “Oh! Cindy isn’t here today – let me just fill out her time card for her – and mark her as here…”

Cindy says that she was salaried at the time, so she would falsify her actual hours worked daily because she was not allowed to show overtime. So some days she would mark eight hours, even though she only worked four, to make up for other days when she worked 12.

Baez then shows Cindy a picture of the trunk of the Sunfire, She identifies it. She and George bought the car in 2000 – for Lee. Lee and George drove it. They bought it for Lee when he was a junior in High School. He drove it until 2005 – then it was passed on to Casey.

She then identifies a stain in the trunk and says that this stain was there when they bought the car. (George testified it was a new stain – that he did all the detailing on the car and he had never seen that stain before.)

Cross by Burdick. (I hope she brought all those questions that Cindy couldn’t remember the answers to before. Seems her memory has improved greatly.)

Burdick asks her if it is her testimony that despite the fact that her work records show she was working on March 17th and March 21st that she was actually home between the hours of 1:43 and 1:55 pm on March 17th. Cindy says it’s possible, yes. No, Burdick doesn’t want to know if it’s “possible” – she wants to know if she was. Cindy says if that’s when those computer “entries” (her word) were made, then she was home. During that week was Casey’s birthday and her anniversary, and she did go home early a couple of days.

Burdick asks the witness if, even though her works records establish that she was working, it is her testimony that she was home on March 21st between the hours of 2:16 and 2:28 pm. Cindy again says “It’s possible” and Burdick again says, no, were you home between those hours. Cindy says that nothing triggers anything to make her remember that day – except for the computer searches. She says if she had access to her work computer – she could tell you what time she went home (And don’t even THINK the state isn’t sending someone right now to get that computer and analyze it.) Burdick asks Cindy if she has looked in the last three years and seen what time she went home on those dates. Cindy says she has not gone back to work since July 15th, 2008. Burdick asks if they still exist and Cindy says yes. Burdick asks if she could have gone back if she wanted to and asked what time she went home on those days – even though her work records say she was working. And Cindy says no, she couldn’t have. And Burdick says “Why? They won’t let you in the door?” And Cindy says no, that’s not the reason. The reason is because she had a working password and she was an employee and only she would know through her emails what time she left. (And if she thinks that IT doesn’t know her password – she’s outside her mind). She says that no one else knew her password and she’s sure all that stuff is (she hopes) lost by now. Burdick gives her a dismissive look and says “you’re guessing…” Cindy tries to talk over her and say “No! I’m not guessing!” But Burdick talks over her, as well, and repeats “You’re guessing.”

Cindy is allowed to finish her answer and she rambles on about how if she’s not there to put in a new password every 30 days…I don’t know, I guess it’s like Mission:Impossible and the whole system implodes or something. She goes on about how it’s “against policy” for even her supervisor to know her password, so no one would be able to save the world and enter the super sekkrit password. But, I’m telling ya, from experience, IT has access to her password.

Burdick asks if her company regularly backed up her emails, and Cindy says some foolishness about email having memory that only lasted so long. And it depended on if they deleted them or not how long they lasted. I think Cindy is confusing “space” with “memory”. And if she wasn’t there to fill up the mailbox with more emails, seems to me the ones that were there would stay forever. As long as you had the sekkrit password, of course.

Burdick counters this with the fact that Cindy knew as early as August of 2008 that these computer searches were an issue. Cindy says no, the first tie she knew of these searches was when Detectives Melich and Allen came to her house asking if she knew why Casey might have performed these searches. Burdick wants to know when that was. Cindy says that was prior to Casey’s arrest on check charges. (Ummm….hold the phone – she’s a defense witness right now. Open the door much??? The state can now bring up her prior arrests, you know.) Burdick says “OK – this would have been in September of 2008. But you didn’t tell them that you made those searches?” Cindy says that she told Law Enforcement. She says “In fact, I told you I made those searches in my 2009 deposition.” Burdick says “No, you told me in your deposition that you searched for chlorophyll.” And Burdick says that Cindy spelled chlorophyll for her. Burdick asks if Cindy remembers denying that she made any searches for”How to Make Chloroform” Cindy says she didn’t look up “How to Make Chloroform” she just looked up “chloroform”.

She says she looked up Chloroform, not “hoe to make chloroform” and when you look up chloroform it tells you what the chains are. (I have no fucking idea what that means. WTF are “chains”?)

Burdick says “You have testified, in the past, that you looked up chlorophyll, correct?” Cindy says “Correct – at the same time I looked up chloroform.”. Burdick says that Cindy suggested that Google search asked you if you wanted to change the spelling of chlorophyll when you searched for it, because you spelled it wrong. Did you enter into the google search engine HOW TO MAKE CHLOROFORM?” Cindy says she does not remember entering those words in – but she does remember googling chloroform. And she remembers talking about it with Burdick in her deposition. Burdick asks her once again if she typed those exact words in the google search bar. Cindy again says she “doesn’t remember typing that in – but she googled chloroform.”

She says she did not search for “self defense”, “household weapons” or “neck breaking”, although she does remember a youtube video pop-up that showed a skateboarder on a turnstile and the caption said a “neck breaking feat.”

Burdick asks Cindy if this is stuff she’s remembering now, since she changed her medication in July 2009.

Burdick asks if she looked up the word “shovel” Cindy says no, she wouldn’t need to look up the word shovel (but she needs to look up the word alcohol…) Burdick asks if, on March 17th, if she looked up the word “inhalation”. Cindy says “probably.” She again says she searched for alcohol, acetone, peroxide, hydrogen peroxide….and Burdick asks again if this is all stuff she’s remembering sine changing her medication. Cindy says no, she always remembered it, because of the email that she got regarding the hand sanitizer.

Burdick asks Cindy what browser she uses. Cindy says “I’m not even sure what you are referring to….”– but this is someone who knows how to delete a search history – and ummm….yeah – why would she delete these searches is they were all so innocent. Someone had to manually go in and delete them, it wasn’t automatic. And the look Burdick gave Cindy kind of said that, too. “Really, lady?? And you deleted the history?”

Burdick asks her which profile she uses,, and Cindy says that the desktop was left on 100% of the time, it was rarely shut down, when you wanted to go on the computer, all you had to do was refresh it. Burdick asks her if she knows that there are 2 profiles on the desktop – User and Casey. Cindy says she didn’t realize that – and that‘s not the way she would log on – she never had to enter a password.

Burdick then asks if she searched for “making weapons out of household products” – she didn’t. And “”chloroform habit” – she says she’s never heard of this one. “Chloro2” – she says she doesn’t remember – she knows there’s chlorophyll 1 and 2.

Burdick asks if she was on druglibrary.org – Cindy says “all the time”. Instructables.com –she doesn’t know. Scispot.com/chloroform – she says she doesn’t know if it came up that way. Burdick then asks if she was on this website 84 times. She says she was on it several times. Burdick asks again “were you on that website 84 times?” Cindy says she doesn’t know. She says that you would need to go to the chlorophyll website and see how many times she was on that and compare it.

Burdick asks if Cindy searched chlorophyll 84 times to see the effects on her animals. Cindy says she didn’t do 84 searches of anything but she doesn’t know what her computer does while it’s running. (And don’t you hate that – while your computer is running and it makes these random google searches for ‘how to make weapons out of household products’. I know that always freaks me the fuck out. Damned computer.)

Burdick then asks Cindy if she had a MySpace account in March of 2008. Cindy says she didn’t. Which is rather odd, considering that all this chloroform and neck breaking searching was happening in between trips to MySpace. It was like “search for chloroform – go look at pictures on MySpace – search for “neck breaking” – log into MySpace – look at pictures on Photo Bucket – search for chloroform again, log into Facebook…. She and Casey must have been sitting there together looking up chlorophyll and surfing.

Burdick then shows Cindy the trunk of the car picture, and asks her where the stain was when she purchased the car. She locates it near the letter B – which doesn’t help the defense at all the decomposition stain was on the spare tire cover.

Burdick is done.

Baez is back. He want sot make sure – the password was on her work computer – not her home one. Yeah, she agrees with that. Baez then asks if she would go on after Casey used it – she says it was on all the time. She would sometimes come home from work and Casey would be on the computer and she would ask if she could get on for a few minutes. And yes, she told the prosecutor about the whole chlorophyll/chloroform thing back in 2009. This is nothing new.

Baez is done.

Cindy is excused.

The defense’s next witness is Sandra Osborne. She is a detective and computer forensic examiner. She is re-accepted as an expert witness.

She was the first computer expert to receive and examine the Anthony desktop. She is the one that found the “hit” on the word chloroform when doing the keyword search. She turned all this information over to her supervisor.

Baez hands her a disc and asks if she recognizes it. She says No, it’s not her handwriting and she’s never seen it before. It’s a disc containing the Firefox deleted internet files. He then shows her a printed out portion of the Excel spreadsheet that was generated from the Firefox deleted internet files. She says this is something that her colleague prepared –the one that actually worked on this file – Sgt. Stenger. She had nothing to do with analyzing the file once she recovered it.

Baez then asks her about her report – the one thing he can actually attribute to her. He asks her if, in her report, she says that she prepared the spreadsheet. She clarifies that in her report she is indicating that she copied the search, exported that and gave it to her Supervisor.

Baez then shows her the Excel spreadsheet displaying the deleted history data, and asks if she recognizes it. She says it is in a different format than what she exported – she can tell because her columns were compressed, these are expanded. (But he data is still the same). When the defense shows her the report with the columns compressed – she says it was Stenger’s report – not hers. She only exported the data, she didn’t put it in report format. Stenger did that.

So, Baez has no more questions. He will have to introduce this specific report through Stenger who she purports is the actual author.

The state crosses – and Burdick seizes on this opportunity to reinforce the fact that Cindy doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about when it comes to her own computer. Burdick asks the witness if there was a password on the profile “User” on the Anthony’s computer. This witness says there was. I mean, I can understand Cindy’s confusion about that. My computer is the same way – I leave it on all the time, and yeah, there’s a password when you first boot up – but not when the computer is on, the screensaver is on and you simply move the mouse to get the computer out of “hibernation”. But we are talking Florida here- land of the storms and power surges. I can’t believe that the power never went out in the Anthony home. They had to have shut the computer off at some point. And if they didn’t manually shut it down or restart it when bad weather came around, the power surges would do that for them. Somebody would have had to have known there was a password on the “User” profile. And what that password was.

And isn’t it odd that the password was “RICO238”? That seems like a Casey thing, and since the password was set in May, and this was the password, it just all seems a little weird. It does look like someone was hiding something.

The witness is excused, and Baez wants her to stick around. He may recall her.

The defense calls Kevin Stenger. He is a sergeant and computer examiner with the OCSD. He is re-asserted as an expert witness. Baez asks him about the report that NetAnalyis generated from the deleted internet history on the Anthony computer.

OK – this is really funny – because now this witness says he’s not the one who did the recovery – Osborne is. I think they need to have them both on the stand at the same time.

But Stenger does admit that the NetAnalysis report Baez is showing him is the one generated. Baez (finally- and after a break for the witness to review the entire document) gets the month of March of that report entered into evidence.

Baez asks this witness to again go through the entire episode of asking Mr. Bradley for his help with the software that Bradley wrote for analyzing computer data. The NetAnalysis program had a glitch with displaying the correct date and time when daylight savings time kicked in. So Stenger used 2 different programs – NetAnalysis and CacheBack. He doesn’t know if these two programs generated the same number of files or the same data in their analysis.

Baez then directs the witness to a specific date in the NetAnalysis report – March 17th, 2008 at 14:16 hours. The website that is addressed at this time is http://www.sci spot.com /chemistry/ chloroform /htm. The witness says that this site was visited one time, according to the NetAnalysis report. Baez then shows the witness the report from CacheBack, and shows him the same entry. The CacheBack report says that this site was visited 84 times.

Baez then directs the witness again to the NetAnalysis report and asks him what site was visited at 14:16. The witness says there are 4 websites listed at that time. The first one is myspace.Com. It shows that this website was visited 84 times. This site is not even listed on the CacheBack report.

So according to the NetAnalysis report, the sci spot site was visited once, and MySpace was visited 84 times.

Baez then directs the witness to the time of March 20th, 2008 at 13:39 hours. The witness acknowledges that MySpace was visited 83 times the day before. Then Baez points the witness to March 19th, 2008 – the day before that, and MySpace is shown to have been visited 82 times. (He is trying to illustrate that this number is a counter – not a denotation of the times visited on one day or at one time.) Baez directs the witness to March 13th, 2008, there was an entry there that was typed for MySpace 81 times.

And there are no mentions of MySpace on the CacheBack report. The witness explains that there wouldn’t be – except for the time that it had in common with the single date that it was generated for. The CacheBack report was only generated for a single day. March 21st, 2008. So, Baez says, that report doesn’t show the natural progression of the numbers – the 81 times, the 82 times, the 83 times. It only reports on the one day – and the 84 times.

Stenger re-iterates that the NetAnalysis report was the one that had the bug in it – it was having problems with Daylight Savings Time and displaying the correct time and date. The witness testifies that the two reports, apparently, are different.

Well, now we know why Bradley named his program “CacheBack:” if you use it, you’ll want the CacheBack that you paid for it.

Cross by Burdick. She directs the witness to the NetAnalysis report and asks if the witness sees any of the google searches of March 21st, 2008. The witness says yes, there is a google search for “How to Make Chloroform”. (Well, it’s spelled wrong – Chloraform) right above the MySpace login. And the witness testifies that it wouldn’t appear this way if someone had typed in “chlorophyll”. Stenger says that he is confident that the dates and times on both reports are accurate. Burdick has the witness point out that the MySpace login and the search for “How to Make Chloroform” are 20 seconds apart. And remember – Cindy didn’t have a MySpace account.

Re-Direct by Baez – Baez asks the witness if it is true that the NetAnalysis reports shows that the searches for “chloroform” on March 21st, 2008, were the very first time those websites were visited. And they were all visited only once – according to the NetAnalysis report. And the time spent on those searches and on those sites was approximately 3 minutes.

The witness says that the CacheBack software was purchased after the NetAnalysis software, and it doesn’t have as much detail on the deleted history as the NetAnalysis report.

And then Baez makes a funny – “Not going to get your cacheback!” (I thought of that quip, as well.) Burdick objects to the sarcastic comment – and is sustained.

Baez is through.

Burdick asks the witness if it’s true that the “time spent” isn’t really “time spent” – that if someone opened a window, left it open, but opened another window, that first window could still be open and could be still being viewed. The windows opening are all that is tracked – not the closing of the windows. The witness agrees that this is the way the software works. Pages could have even been printed.

Baez then asks if the report gives any indication of this “tabbed stuff” The witness says no. So whether or not a window is left open is pure speculations. And no one ever informed him that they found printed pages having to do with chloroform.

The witness is excused. The defense is done for the day and the judge sends the jury home. There are legal matters to discuss.

The sate says that the defense’s next two witnesses – Savage and Martin – have nothing to do with this case. Everything they know is stuff that has been told to them. They want a proffer.

Mason says that they don’t need a proffer – the defense will present he witnesses and the state can object as they normally do. Ashton says that from what he knows of Eric Martin – she is simply the evidence coordinator at the FBI. She receives evidence and sends it where it needs to go. She doesn’t test evidence or analyze evidence – the state wants a proffer.

Mason says that Savage will testify as to things he did in this case that the prosecution asked him to do. Martin will testify as to things she did.

Ashton is concerned that the defense wants to ask Savage about the paternity test issue. The state still asserts that this is not relevant.

Mason then offers that when an FBI has memorialized in an email that when they are asked about photographs that instructs to create a murder weapon with tape and they respond “We’ll just tell them we didn’t take the pictures” that this questions the integrity of the entire case. (I have absolutely no idea what he’s talking about. What he said doesn’t even make sense.) Mason says he can show the judge the emails.

Savage is brought in for the proffer.
He is Nickolas B. Savage. He was the lead FBI agent in this case. He was assigned to the Tampa Division. He was the Crimes Against Children coordinator.

He attended a meeting in February 2009 with the prosecutors. Mason asks the witness if, in this meeting, there was a discussion of whether or not duct tape could have covered the child’s nose and mouth. The state objects on the basis that this is work product. Mason says “Hmmmmmm….I guess it could be….” Which was really funny. The judge says sustained on the basis of work product. Mason then asks the witness what he did as a result of this meeting. The witness says “what meeting” and Mason says “the meeting we can’t identify now because of the sustained objection”. Mason then asks if, after this meeting the witness went out and tried to find some photographs for the prosecution. He says he did – he went and coordinated with Karen Cowan, who had daily contact with the lab. The witness made a specific request of the medical examiner’s office to obtain photos of the duct tape with scales. (One of the requests he made was to Erin Martin – so now we know what she is here to testify about).

Mason asks if the witness remembers why he made that specific request. The witness says he asked for them because he didn’t believe that they had been taken up to that point and he wanted pictures with scale.

Mason asks if he then got a responding email from Erin P. Martin of the FBI. The witness says no. Mason wants to show him the email, but Ashton points out that this witness was not a recipient named in the email. Mason says he will ask the witness if he’s seen the email, and says that is why he has Erin Martin here.

The witness says he recognizes the email. The defense showed it to him before. HE then reads it and says it’s the first time he has sent his email – it wasn’t the one shown to him before.

Which shuts Mason down. He has no more questions.

Ashton gets up and says “I have no questions right now – I’m not sure what counsel thinks is admissible in that.”

Mason says “Well now I want Erin Martin to come in for a proffer,.”

So they send Savage away and call Erin Martin. She is the request coordinator at the FBI. Mason asks if she remembers sending Karen Lowe an email back in February of 2009. She says not specifically, no. Mason shows her the email. She says she sent it. She then reads it. It has to do with her not feeling comfortable sending measurements to Savage, because the ME’s office didn’t take pictures of the tape on the skull.

The judge asks about Mr. Savage – what does his testimony prove or disprove dealing with a material fact. Masons says that the material fact is the murder weapon. Ashton has tried to create one by saying that the duct tape is the murder weapon. He made a specific request to get photographs to try and create one instead of getting the actual tape itself and trying to see what the evidence proved. He had Savage request photos with scales on them from the FBI lab. The response he gets back is “we’ll just say that we don’t have the pictures”. Mason says that, to him, this is pretty outlandish. And this should have been given to the defense as Brady material. The state was trying to create evidence.

Ashton stands up and says that this is an attack n the prosecution – saying that the prosecution has done something wrong. And even if that were true it still wouldn’t be admissible. Attacks upon counsel are specifically prohibited. Ashton says that he thinks if counsel would read the email more carefully, that he would see that this is an email form an attorney (and Ashton is flattered Mason thinks that he thought of this scheme – he didn’t, but he thanks counsel for thinking he thought of it.) And this attorney is simply trying to see what evidence was available. But Ashton says this is clearly not relevant to this case and should be excluded.

Mason says he isn’t attacking a prosecutor – he’s attacking the whole system. (haha).

The judge says that the testimony of Savage doesn’t go to disprove any material fact. If this testimony went to prove fabrication of evidence, then this would be the subject of a motion to dismiss based on prosecutorial misconduct, but there is no evidence of that. This particular evidence does not go to any material issue or fact.

The state makes the same argument with regards to Erin Martin. Her testimony is strictly hearsay.

Mason says the defense made a motion for mistrial with regards to the animation image that the state entered into evidence. And that’s the very issue this evidence goes to – they didn’t have the tape measurements on the skull and they tried to fabricate them.

Ashton says it’s no surprise to anyone in this courtroom that the state didn’t have the measurements of the three pieces of tape together. The defense has known that for three years. Ashton is not quite sure what counsels objection is to that.

The judge says Martin’s testimony isn’t relevant, either.

And the court stands by its ruling. It’s not relevant based on the proffer.

Baez says “Have a nice evening”.

So I’ve been getting a bunch of notifications from Facebook that “So and So Wants to be your Friend!!” Many of those notifications, I guess, have come from here – because (of course) the vast majority of the readers here are smart enough to include a comment letting me know who you are (and, for some reason I recognized a lot of the names…)

But, just to be fair and upfront with you, I feel I have to tell you, I have a few Facebook rules. I have been known in the past to summarily “unfriend” people without so much as a warning, and while I am absolutely certain that no one gives a flying fuck if I unfriend them (and I’m quite sure some of them haven’t even noticed…) I always feel a little guilty when I do unfriend them, because, you know, they surely didn’t realize why I unfriended them, so I’ll let you guys all in on the reasons…..

Reasons Why I Unfriended You On Facebook:

1. Sonogram Pictures: For the love of all that’s Holy – I do NOT want to see your Sonogram pictures. And I certainly don’t want to see it if you’ve felt the need to go into PhotoShop and attach labels pointing out the child’s penis, or the fact that it’s sucking it’s thumb, or that he has your father’s nose. There’s a great chance that if I’ve never asked to see your uterus before you were pregnant, I certainly don’t want to see it when there is a half formed human living in it. [You would be amazed how many sonogram pictures I regularly receive in my NewsFeed. WTF???? Do you even know how many times I’ve been tempted to post pictures of Paul’s MRI’s? And don’t think I am not going to ask the surgeon if I can take a few pictures of the back operation and post pictures of that. Photoshopped]

2. Guess Why I Posted That: These are the stupid fucking status updates that mean absolutely fucking nothing – and then everyone is supposed to comment asking “WHY???” or “OMG!!! What Happened!!!” You know, the status updates that consist of nothing more than “SOOOO MAD RIGHT NOW!!!” or “OMG I CAN’T BELIEVE THAT HAPPENED!!!” with no further explanation. Yeah, I don’t have time to play fucking charades over the internet. Generally, I post one thing to these status updates: “Vaguebook is down the hall and to the left.” and then I “unfriend” them. With about as much explanation as their status update of “CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT!!!” gets.

3. Every Status Update Includes a Picture of Food They just Made, Just Bought, Or Are Just About to Eat: I don’t even understand this one. But I unfriended someone who took a picture of every single meal they were eating. The last straw was a picture of a Big Mac with the status update of “Lunch”. You know, I don’t get out a lot, but I’m pretty sure I know what the fuck a Big Mac looks like. And mostly, this unfriending was a peremptory one. I mean, since I have absolutely no idea why someone would take pictures of their food before they eat it, I have no idea when they are going to start taking pictures of their food as it leaves their body, too.

4. “Its Complicated”: These are the people who change their relationship status at least once a day – generally to reflect their latest argument, lovemaking, or trolling for new relationships. I finally unfriended someone who went from “Single” to “Engaged” to “Married” to “Divorced” in one week.

5. “Top 40”: This is the person who does nothing but post song lyrics as status updates all day long. Unless you are Casey Kasem or Ryan Seacrest, yeah, I don’t want to fucking hear it.

6. Spammer: Yeah, this one is a no-brainer, but if every time you post a status update it’s to tell me that you are now offering 59% off all of your crap on Ebay or Etsy, yeah, I’m unfriending your ass quicker than shit. And if the only reason you have a Facebook account is to shill your Avon, Partylite or SMS crap, maybe you should get off of Facebook and go look for a job.

7. Illiterate: If you don’t know the difference between “Their” and “There” or “Two” and “To”, and if every other word you spell doesn’t have vowels in it, sorry, but you’re fucking gone. It absolutely appalls me how many grown ass people don’t know how to spell. I think I’ve been sheltered by only being in usenet groups where intelligence is the only requirement – and on this blog, where the people commenting are considerably above average in the brains department (well….except some of the local folk who wrote in to rail against my disparaging comments on the beloved Redneck Games….) But I won’t put up with that shit on Facebook.

And I know you all understand all of these rules – and I’m betting you have some pet peeves of your own when it comes to Facebook– let me know what they are, so when you unfriend me, I’ll know why.

The first defense witness today is Maureen Bottrell. She is a geologist/forensic examiner with the FBI. She has been with the FBI for 16 years. She has a Masters in Geology from Georgia. As a geologist/forensic examiner her main duties include the analysis of geological material like soil samples, rocks, minerals, gemstones, and those things we make out of them that are very like artificial rocks, like glass and building materials such as cement. She has testified about 40 times. She is accepted as an expert witness in the area of geology.

She received evidence in this case when evidence was sent to the FBI lab for testing. Mostly what she tests for forensically in her laboratory is comparison analysis – could two items have come from the same source. For instance – could the soil on this thing have come from the known source we are looking at. She also does provenance studies – she will get a sample and be asked to determine where in the city, state or country this sample could have come from, so she will analyze it geologically to try to determine that.

How she does these things is the same way geologists all over do it. First – they collect a sample – from a pair of shoes, for example. Then they do an inspection for obvious things, like the color and texture of the sample. Then she might look microscopically at the sample, to determine the shape and size of individual grains of sand. Then she will determine the actual mineralogical composition of the soil. What the soil is made of.

The witness testifies that in her work she generally uses stereo binocular microscopes and transmitted light microscopes. There are three geologists employed by the FBI.

Baez directs the witness to her report in this case dated March 4th, 2010. She examined items from the Sunfire identified as debris collected from the trunk, a shovel, and 22 pairs of shoes and a transport bag from the Anthony home. She also received soil standards from the site on Suburban drive. These samples were form the site – after the top layer had been scraped by the Crime Scene investigators.

For the material from the car she was asked to do a provenance study – where did this material come from. One of the samples was too small and insufficient to do an analysis on – so that sample was set aside. The other sample from the trunk was a mix of materials, which is not uncommon for a sample taken from a car. Because the materials were mixed, she couldn’t really perform a provenance study – because the examiners are unable to “unmix” the sample. So neither of the samples from the car were suitable for a provenance study.

For the shovel she was also asked to do a provenance study – where did the material on the shovel come from. That study was underway when the body was found – so that study was stopped. Investigators had asked the FBI to perform the study to determine if the child had been buried somewhere. Once they found the body, that study was no longer needed.

For the shoes there were many that had no geological material on them – some of them appeared to be unworn (of course, when you have an imaginary job – where would you wear shoes?) There were only 3 pairs of shoes that had enough geological material to make a comparison. And the material found was different than the soil samples of the recovery site and could not have originated from that location.

There was insufficient material on the transport bag for comparison.

Cross by Ashton – He asks if this means that Casey’s shoes had never been on Suburban Drive. She says no, she cannot determine that. There are many possibilities – someone could have been at a scene and no soil transferred; someone could have been there and the soil transferred but later fell off; someone could have been there and soil transferred but was later contaminated by subsequent soil transfer; or the person could have never been there to begin with. Scientifically, this witness cannot tell which scenario is the true one.

Ashton asks – “so is the lack of soil on a person’s shoes meaningless as to whether or not they’ve actually been in a place?” And the witness says yes.

Baez re-directs. He asks the witness if those four scenarios she gave to Ashton are speculation. She says no, they are scenarios if she applied one to this case – that would be speculation.

The witness is excused

The next witness is Madeline Montgomery – she is a forensic toxicologist with the FBI. She has been employed with the FBI for 15 years. She has a BS in Chemistry. She has coursework in Forensic Chemistry and Forensic Toxicology. Forensic toxicology is the study of drugs and poisons in people. The witness says that she analyzes things like blood, urine, hair and autopsy samples such as livers and brains for the presence of drugs and poisons.

More than half of the work that she does supports local and state investigations. She works with equipment that not all state and local agencies have access to. Her lab has the ability to do more sophisticated testing. She also supports FBI investigations all across the country. She has testified 11 times in state, federal and military court. She is accepted as an expert.

Baez refers her to her report of March 13th, 2009. She received the hair mass that came form the remains. For testing hair, the first thing the examiner is looking for is chemicals in the hair. To test for this, the examiner needs to look inside the hair. The examiner soaks a sample of the hair in liquid nitrogen. This makes the hair very cold and very brittle, so that it breaks on impact. The examiner than grinds the hair sample to dust. That dust is then soaked in a chemical solvent overnight. Any poisons or drugs the examiner is looking for will be leeched into the solvent. The next day the examiner will perform further purification techniques on the solvent and make what they call an extract. Then that extract will be taken, along with known blank samples of hair that the examiners have added drugs or poisons to as control samples. These would all be taken to the instrument which is called a liquid chromatograph mass spectrometer.

In this case, the witness was initially asked to test the hair mass for alprazolam (Xanax) and clonazepam (klonopin). These are drugs from the benzodiazepine classification. They can be drugs that help someone to sleep or to calm nerves, as before surgery. The testing the witness did for those drugs in the hair sample were negative.

While the initial testing was going on, and the evidence was in the laboratory, the FBI lab was already validating a new method of testing that included not only the two drugs they were testing the hair sample for, but also 9 other drugs. This method was superior to the method they were already using. (On the order of 10 times more sensitive). So the timing worked out perfectly for the witness to test the hair sample again, using the new method, which would detect those two drugs she was initially tasked to test for – but the new method would detect them at much lower levels. She also tested for the 9 other drugs, as well. These drugs included 8 other drugs in the benzodiazepine classification, such as diazepam (valium), flunitrazepam (roofies, or the date rape drug), and other benzodiazepines and their metabolites, or what the body breaks them down into. She also was able to test for ketamine (Special K) , which is a veterinary tranquilizer often found among the club scene and taken for its hallucinogenic properties.

Her results for the 10 benzodiazepines plus Ketamine were all negative.

Baez asks the witness how much exposure to a drug would be needed before she would be able to get results for that drug. The witness testifies that in hair samples, sometimes even with controlled studies -where the researcher will give a subject a known amount of a drug and then test the hair of a subject – they are not always able to detect the presence of the drug in the hair. There is no set or known quantity that someone has to be exposed to before testing is positive.

Baez is done. Ashton crosses the witness.

Basically, he says, forensically the drug is meaningless. A negative result doesn’t mean that the person wasn’t given the drug.

The witness says all it means is that she found no evidence of the drug being given. She testifies that hair is not the best sample for drug exposure.

Ashton says that a negative result doesn’t really mean that a person wasn’t given a drug.

The witness testifies that even if she had gotten a positive result, she wouldn’t have been able to tell when or how often a person was given a drug. In longer hair she can test the samples down the length of the hair and determine chronic use if there are positive results over the growth of the hair. This hair sample was such that she had to look at it in bulk, as one sample.

Ashton points out that if a person was given a drug and died shortly afterwards, that it wouldn’t show up in the hair, anyway. The witness agrees.

The witness testifies that there is no test for chloroform in hair samples – and she also can’t tell if the child drowned.

Re-Direct. Baez asks the witness what other kind of meaningless work she does at the FBI. (Funny). She says she doesn’t think her work is meaningless. She says that she doesn’t test for chloroform in hair samples – but she does test for chloroform in liquid biological samples.

The witness is excused – after a bunch of questions Baez were objected to and sustained – mostly to do with Goldberger and the tests he performed.

The defense calls their next witness – and it looks like Cheney Mason is doing the questioning. That must mean the witness is boring.

Yeah, he looks boring. He is Dr. Michael Sigman, he is a faculty member at the University of Central Florida. He has a PhD in chemistry. He used to be a staff scientist at the Body Farm. He knew Dr. Vass when he was at the Body Farm.

In this case, on July 21st, 2008, he received a call from Eric Walton, a member of the University of Central Florida police department, asking if he would be willing to speak with a Mr. Stryker, from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, who was asking if he would be willing to help in taking air samples from the trunk of the car that belonged to Miss Anthony.

Sigman spoke with Mr. Stryker, who informed him that they had been in contact with Dr. Vass, they wanted to take samples from the trunk of the car. Vass gave them Sigman’s name as someone who would be able to help in collecting the samples and lived in the Orlando area. Sigman called Vass and asked what kind of samples he wanted and what methodology he wanted to use. Sigman knew Dr. Vass and was aware of his work. Sigman knew that Vass typically uses absorbent traps, and Sigman had none, although he knew other ways to pull the air samples, including tedlar bags, and Vass said that would be acceptable.

Sigman proceeded to the OCSD, with Doug Clark, his associate, and they took 2 tedlar bags and a gas type syringe to pull the samples. The procedure generally involves a pump to get the air into the bag, but he didn’t have a pump, so he used the gas type syringe. When he arrived at he OCSD, the trunk was closed, and he opened it just enough to get the syringe into the trunk. Then he pulled the air into the syringe, and injected the air into the tedlar bag. He took two samples – one 1 liter and a second sample 300 milliters.

They left both samples in the custody of the OCSD. The larger sample they sent to Dr. Vass, the smaller sample they brought the next morning to the National Forensic Science Lab at the University of Central Florida for them to perform preliminary testing on the bag.

The first test he ran on the air was to use the gas type syringe to pull 250 microliters of air from the tedlar bag. They injected this air directly into the Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer to analyze the air. They found in their testing trace amounts of volatile organic compounds. The signal was not strong and the sample was not concentrated enough to make a strong enough signal for them to determine anything. The compounds they found were the sort that one would find in gasoline or other petroleum projects. They were hydro carbons.

Because this sample did not show strong signal strengths, they took a second sample from the bag. They took this sample using a different methodology that would concentrate the sample. They used a solid phase micro extraction fiber (SPME). They then put the SPME fiber through the Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer. This sample tested very similar to the first, but since it was concentrated, the signal showed up much better and was much stronger. This test again concluded that the air sample was consistent with the presence of gasoline.

He did not do any quantitative analysis. He was able to identify, from the second sample, some toluene and some ethyl benzene, both compounds found in gasoline.

After analyzing the samples from the tedlar bag, they returned to the Orange County Sheriffs Department with a SPME unit and activated carbon strip and extracted samples.

They placed the SPME unit and the carbon strip in the trunk for 40 minutes to extract a sample with each. They took them out of the trunk, placed them on ice and brought them back to their lab to examine them immediately.

The next day they returned to the OCSD and extracted 4 SPME samples and 2 carbon strip samples. Those units were left in the trunk for 7 and 1/.2 hours.

They returned to the lab and analyzed these samples, as well. The primary pattern in the GCMS results was that of gasoline. They also detected the presence of chloroform, tetrachloroethene and dimethyl disulfide. A quantitative analysis was not done. But the primary compound was gasoline.

Tetrachloroethene is primarily used in the dry cleaning industry. It can also be used as a degreaser or spot remover. Chloroform is also used as a degreaser or in spot remover applications. It is also a by-product of bleach. Dimethyl Disulfide is present in onions, cabbage and soil samples, and it’s been reported in decomposition events, as well.

Dr. Vass has reported in his research that all three of these compounds are produced in decompositional events. He listed 30 compounds in his paper, which included these three that he called “markers” for human decomposition. Dr. Stephanopoulos reported in his paper in the Journal of Forensic Scientists, that there were 86 such compounds or “markers” for human decomposition. Of these 86 compounds, 11 were in common with the ones listed by Dr. Vass. Dr. Stephanopoulos did not list chloroform, nor did he list tetrachloroethene. But Dr. Stephanopoulos’ studies were done on aerobic bodies, bodies that had exposure to air. Dr. Vass’s studies were done on anerobic bodies – bodies that did not have access to air, and Dr. Vass has suggested that these compounds may be produced when there is no air present during decomposition.

The witness says that based on the samples that he collected and the analysis he did on those samples, and based on the chemicals that he found, and because there are other sources of those compounds in other places, he could not conclude that there was a human decompositional event in the trunk of the car.

Now, you know, this witness sure did phrase that oddly, emphasizing in every other sentence that this is based on the tests that he did, based on the samples that he collected, based on the results that he got. How much do you want to bet that if you asked him, what about based on the samples that Dr. Vass analyzed and based on the results that Vass got, added together with the samples that this witness ran, that his answer would be that he did think there were human remains in the trunk. It’s just the way he couched every phrase and the way he looked at Mason.

Mason then asks the witness if he was aware that here was a bag of trashage (trash/garbage) in the trunk. The witness says that he has tried not to follow all the details of the case, but he does understand that there was trashage found in the trunk.

Ashton then crosses. He confirms with the Doctor that the date of his initial sample taking, with the tedlar bags was July 21st, 2008. The doctor did not open or inspect the trunk. So he did not know that the liner and spare tire cover had already been removed.

The doctor says that a micro liter is one millionth of a liter. The doctor drew 300 microliters and he describes this amount as the diameter of a lead pencil, filled up to maybe ¼ of an inch.

Dr. Vass had requested the samples be taken with a triple sorbent trap, but this witness did not have those available. The triple sorbent traps are much more effective in collecting air samples. You can test larger volumes of air and with more accuracy. The witness agrees that the traps are better – and that the traps are better than the SPME fibers, as well as the carbon strips. But the witness used the best methods he had available to him.

The testes this witness ran told him what was in the air, but not where those compounds came from. If one had samples, like a piece of carpet sample, one could test the air around that carpet sample to determine if the chemicals were being generated by it.

Even with the carpet and the spare tire cover gone from the trunk, the witness was still able to detect the presence of chloroform. Those chemicals are consistent with the research available regarding human decomposition.

Ashton asks about the witness’s statement that chloroform is a byproduct of bleach and some organic compounds. Ashton asks if this literature is regarding the effects of finding small amounts of chloroform in people that have swimming pools. The witness agrees. Ashton asks what amounts this chloroform was found in. The witness says very minor amounts. But this reaction would also yield bromides, not just chloroform. And this reaction would not occur just by throwing a bathing suit in the back of a trunk.

Ashton asks if anything this witness found leads him to believe that the source of the chloroform or the tetrachloroethene came from natural sources. He does not.

The witness says that there was an odor coming form the trunk, but he doesn’t have a background to identify the smell.

Re-Direct. Mason asks if he only found these three compounds in 2 of the samples he drew. The witness says he actually found them in 4. But no, he doesn’t know the source. The predominant prodile was identified as gasoline. And he reported this to OCSD three years ago.

Re-Cross – based on the circumstances that he drew the samples from a garage and it was from the trunk of a car he was not surprised to find gasoline.

The witness is excused.

The defense calls Susan Mears. She is a crime scene supervisor with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department.

Baez shows the witness some pictures she took at the scene. One of the pictures shows a red World of Disney plastic bag. Inside of that bag was a “Cool Blue” Gatorade bottle. These items were 7 inches away from the skull.

The witness is excused.

The defense’s next witness is Dr. Michael Rickenbach, He is a forensic chemist with the FBI. He is still an expert.

Baez directs the witness to his report dated December 11th, 2008. He received and tested items from his control unit from the OCSD. These items were the car seat and the steering wheel cover. The witness tested these items for volatile substances, particularly chloroform. It was not founded on either of there items. He doesn’t know why they were tested, he just tested them. He was not informed that this testing was done to see if chloroform was on someone’s hands and then on the steering wheel.

In July 2009, He was also given another item to test for chloroform. This was Caylee’s doll. It was negative for chloroform.

Ashton crosses the witness. He asks if there weren’t initial indications that there may have been chloroform on the doll – that the witness had to go and get another doll. The witness says that yes, when the doll was first tested there were indications of chloroform in small amounts. He requested that a similar doll be submitted. A co-worker submitted a similar doll that he had, and he analyzed the original doll again. The doll the co-worker gave him also showed low levels of chloroform, also in very small amounts. The co-workers doll and Caylee’s doll were similar, but not exact matches. Because the levels were so low that he couldn’t make a finding that there was chloroform present.

Baez re-directs. Baez says “So let me get this straight – your co-worker has a daughter and her doll has chloroform on it?” (funny). The witness says that isn’t what he said at all. He couldn’t find enough levels on either doll to say there was chloroform on either of them. Chloroform is found in other items – but the witness doesn’t believe that there was chloroform in these items naturally – it may have been an artifact that was produced by heating up the sample. That’s why he uses a negative control, so he doesn’t incorrectly identify compounds that are not present but produced during testing.

They all go to sidebar when Baez is finished – but when we come back from sidebar, Baez seems to be back on Direct. He asks the doctor what he originally wanted to ask him about – the Gatorade bottle and the testing the doctor did on it and the liquid and syringe that were found in the Gatorade bottle.

The doctor was submitted a Gatorade bottle with an unknown liquid in it. There was also a syringe in the bottle, also with an unknown liquid in it. The doctor was asked to identify those liquids.

The doctor tested the liquid in the Gatorade bottle was a white murky liquid. Testing did not identify the liquid exactly, but it was found to be some kind of cleaning fluid. There was also a syringe with a needle on it inside the Gatorade bottle; there was a yellow oily liquid in the hypodermic. The doctor tested this and found testosterone compounds.

In the Gatorade bottle liquid, the one that contained some form of cleaning solution, there were low levels of chloroform found. These were at very low levels and could have come from the cleaning products.

Cross – Ashton points out that the levels of chloroform in the Gatorade bottle were so small that the witness did not report them. Chloroform is known to be in some cleaning products, so it was not surprising to find it there.

Ashton is done.

The doctor is excused.

The defense calls their next witness – Karen Korsberg Lowe – she is re-certified as a hair and fiber expert.

Baez asks about some of her reports – starting with one dated August 13th, 2008. This report is concerning some items of clothing that came from Casey Anthony’s closet. These items were processed for hair and fibers and the hairs recovered were tested for apparent signs of decomposition. Those items were tested and all results were negative.

October 15th 2008 report is discussed next. This report was regarding debris recovered from the vehicle. Again, this item was tested for hairs and any apparent signs of decomposition on any hairs found. None were found.

October 21st, 2008 report – regarding a hair recovered from another examiner while testing another item. This hair had no apparent signs of decomposition.

November 6th 2008 report – regarding 4 items of debris, 2 from trash bag, 2 from paper towel. No hairs with apparent decomposition

June 25th 2009 report – this report covers 5 different items.

1. Items from the trash recovered from vehicle. There were 12 items and 8 trunk items – this was all debris and these items were all tested for hairs with characteristics of decomposition and none were found.
2. From the Medical Examiner’s office – she examined any fibers found from the scene and known to be from Caylee and compared them to known samples of the trunk liner and spare tire cover – there were no fibers found in common.
3. Items from the residence – she examined fabric from duct tape from the scene compared to duct tape taken from the home. These two exemplars did not match.
4. Medical Examiner’s Office – she examined debris, plastic, a blanket, and looked for hairs and compared them to the hair mass to find any hairs that might be dissimilar. There was one Caucasian head hair found on a collection paper, which did not match Caylee’s hair. She pulled hairs from CSI agents to determine if this hair was from any of them.

This prompts a sidebar, then the jury being sent out for a break. During the break Baez and Ashton hash out the testimony. They decide that the witness can testify that some, although not all, of the CSI investigators were tested as the source of the hair. That’s what she testifies to.

Her March 30th, 2010 report relates that the hairs tested came from Robin Maynard, Christine Mankiewicz, Melissa Cardiello, Sara Coerbel, Kelly Wood, Gerardo Bloise, Jenny Welch.

(This is not a complete list of everyone that was at the scene.)

She eliminated these people as potential donors. Currently that hair is unidentified.

Back to the June 25th 2009 report there was one more sample set that she tested. They were all tested for hairs being similar or dissimilar to known standards, nothing forensically significant was found.

In all the times she tested there were hundreds of hairs. Out of all these hairs coming from different locations, she found only one hair that showed signs of apparent decomposition.

Cross – The one hair that was unidentified came from a collection paper form one item, but she doesn’t know which items. And the one hair that had decomposition came from the trunk. And this witness has no idea where Casey was living in the 31 days prior to the collection of the hair – so this witness doesn’t know if she was wearing the clothes from the residence.

Re-Direct – Baez asks if she was given items from where Casey was living if she would have tested them. She says she certainly could have.

The witness leaves.

And so does the judge. He has an important budget meeting.

And Ashton has the balls to stand up and say “Judge I have some issues to address before court begins” – which is brave after the dressing down the attorneys got yesterday for doing the exact same thing.

Ashton wants to address the discovery issues regarding Mr. Eikelenboom that they touched upon briefly yesterday. They completed his deposition yesterday – and they’ve provided the court with a rough copy of the transcript.

Ashton says it is the state’s opinion that a clear violation of the discovery rules has occurred, and after review of the case law the judge had pointed them to, the state feels that exclusion of the witness outright is not necessary, and they won’t be asking that he witness not testify. That would not be in the best interests of the defendant, or this case.

The state would, though, ask for sanctions in the following way: Inclusion of this incident in the court’s contempt proceedings that it is contemplating holding at the end of the trial, Ashton says that the state has been able to overcome the procedural prejudice in most aspects of the testimony, and he believes that he will be able to cross examine him effectively.

The only concern that Ashton has is with one particular area that the witness intends to give his opinion on – the witness intends to tell the jury that DNA can be obtained from decompositional fluid. If the discovery rules had been obeyed, this is a subject that would have been addressed in a pre-trial Frye hearing. The witness admits in his deposition that this is an opinion that is not supported by any peer reviewed research –or any research at all. This opinion is based on some anecdotal research of his own. (And these opinions were formulated on Saturday – at lunch.) Also according to his deposition, this witness was never informed of the court’s order, and was not aware that he had to submit a report.

So, the state would ask that the witness be precluded from testifying concerning the lack of DNA evidence in the carpet stain in the trunk. If the court were to conduct a full and fair Frye hearing, the proponent would not be able to show general acceptance of this principle, and the defense has already had one witness testify on this issue, Miss Seubert from the FBI testified about various bodily fluids and whether or not you’d be able to get DNA.

Ashton says that aside form this issue, they should be able to address the rest of his testimony in cross examination. Ashton also has a written instruction for the jury he would like the judge to consider giving at the time the witness testifies:

All reports of experts were required to be provided well before the beginning of this trial. The report of Richard Eikelenboom was not provided to the state until Sunday, June 19th, 2011 . You may consider this fat when judging the credibility of the witness, the witnesses’ testimony and in determining what weight it should be given in your deliberations.

The judge then asks for Baez’s response to Ashton’s comments. Baez says that he filed a response with the court in December, 2010, when the court had asked what Eikelenboom would be called to testify about. In that response, Baez had listed the witnesses CV, his expertise as DNA, Crime Scene Analysis and Trace Recovery. He also stated in that response, to both the court and the Prosecution, that if Mr. Eikelenboom were to be called, he would testify regarding DNA, Crime Scene Analysis and Trace DNA evidence. Baez also stated in this response that the witness had reviewed all reports and photographs taken at the recovery site and personally inspected many of these items. Baez also included in this report the very broad and all encompassing statement of “If Mr. Eikelenboom were to be called to testify, the substance and facts that he would be expected to testify to would be to rebut any false claims raised by the state’s forensic experts dealing with the subject of DNA, Crime Scene Analysis and Trace Recovery. Until that occurs it is difficult to give a complete summary of his opinions, and the grounds for those opinions.”

Baez says that he raises this because this is a very complex case, especially forensically. What he would like Eikelenboom to testify to is the issue of degradation of DNA. This notice that he gave in the response to the court should have been sufficient to put the state on notice that this is the issue he would be testifying to.

Baez thinks that this witness and this situation is completely separate from the Rodriguez issue, and Baez would like the court to consider them separately.

Baez says that this witness was not to create a “gotchya” moment, and yes, this witness’s opinion was formulated on Saturday, while he and Baez were talking and Baez was asking him questions.

Baez says one remedy the court could consider is to call the witness to testify solely on those issues that deal with DNA degradation. Baez says that while he would love to argue the whole issue of exclusion with Ashton, regarding the DNA from decompositional fluid, Miss Seubert testified to that, and no objection was raised by the state and Ashton never asked for a Frye hearing then. Baez accuses Ashton of inflaming the court into thinking that sanctions are warranted, and creating a ruse of an issue, when the fact of the matter is, it’s not so.

Baez proposes, in an effort to move things along, to have Eikelenboom testify solely on the explanation of DNA, specifically the low copy number DNA, which Miss Seubert couldn’t explain because, unfortunately, the FBI doesn’t do that sort of DNA. This witness is uniquely qualified for this testimony. Baez would also have this witness testify to DNA degradation. And that would be all that this witness would testify about. Baez feels this would resolve the issue and they can move forward.

Ashton responds by pointing out that he state did not offer any DNA evidence in this case. All DNA testimony was elicited by the defense. The defense is, therefore, rebutting their own witness with this witness.

Ashton also says that he’s not sure what Baez was saying – but if he is saying that the witness is not going to give an opinion regarding collecting DNA from decomp fluid, then Ashton is fine with this witness. As long as the witness is not going to testify regarding the carpet stain, Ashton has no problem with the witness. That is the only area that Ashton felt there was procedural prejudice. But if this is Baez’s intention, then that resolves this issue. Ashton feels the instruction, though, would still be necessary, and the other procedures, later in the trial, would also be necessary. But as far as the witness goes, if that’s what he means, that’s fine.

Judge Perry then addresses both sides, saying that, at some point, the court granted the defense’s motion to have certain items – the shorts Caylee was wearing and the bag she was found in – tested for DNA (at taxpayer’s expense). These items were sent to National Services Medical Laboratory in Pennsylvania. The defense never requested neither the tape nor the carpet samples be tested. The judge then asks if he understands correctly, that this witness would testify about DNA being on the tape – and he wants to testify about the carpet samples and colleting decomp fluid from the carpet sample for DNA in the decomp fluid. Ashton agrees that this is correct.

Ashton then tells the judge that, according to his deposition, the witness was not aware of which items were sent for DNA testing, and what the results were. He was never informed of this. The judge asks – so he was never informed that these items could have been tested but were not? And Ashton repeats – I believe this witness would say that he believes they could have been tested – but he was unaware that they were not.

In response to this, Baez says that they are talking about 2 different types of DNA testing. The testing this witness does is low copy number DNA. They utilize a special kit called a mini filer, which allows you to get DNA from very, very minute amounts. That type of testing is unique. The defense requested permission to have them test items, and that was objected to by the state, and their objection was sustained, which meant that the defense was not afforded the opportunity to have this witness test the items, due to this being a very specialized field of DNA, which this witness is a pioneer of. As an alternative, the defense was granted the ability to have certain items sent to an ASCLAD certified lab. Baez says that he asked specifically for a different type of DNA testing for these items, since he felt it was going to be the best chance to get some results. The type of testing was not low copy number DNA, but YSTR

The judge asks Baez if Baez is saying that there is no certified lab in the entire United States that does low copy number DNA tests. Baez answers that his understanding is that the only lab that does this is the New York City crime lab. This technique is quite prevalent in Europe, though. The judge asks if Low Copy DNA has been Frye-proofed yet. Baez says that the method has been introduced in many cases across the country, but whether or not it has been Frye tested in Florida, he can not say.

Ashton offers that in the witness’s deposition, he explained that low copy DNA testing is not unique to his lab, and it’s not a unique process. The witness stated that what he does is, rather than run the regular PC R replication process 24 times, he’ll run it 30 times. The witness did not state in his deposition that the process was not used in the United States.

Baez says that this information is absolutely not true. There is a special kit called a mini filer that is used in the Low Copy DNA processing, and he is sure Mr. Ashton is aware of this kit. It is not just extra runs in the PCR process. Nr. Eikelenboom is well known in the DNA community as being a pioneer in this area; He does something a little bit different, not only in the replication process and the use of the mini filer kits. The witness is here – he can testify to the uniqueness of his process and what he does that is different.

Baez says that the defense would object to any special instruction to the jury that would punish the defense, since the state had not taken this witness’s deposition until very recently, and he is not testifying in any specialized area the state is not familiar with and especially sine the defense is conceding to limiting his testimony.

The judge then decides the issue, saying that he will grant the state’s request for the instruction and at this time would prohibit the testimony concerning the possibility of DNA testing of the decompositional fluid from the trunk of the car. What the court will do, out of an abundance of caution, since it looks like we are going to be doing this for the next two weeks, if you want to schedule a Frye hearing, giving the state at least one week’s notice, I will consider doing that, to see whether or not it would be admissible. But for the time being, it is not going to admitted as a sanction for not disclosing it. The judge says he is not going to permanently shut the door on it, with proper notice; he will permit anyone who has an expert to testify by video conferencing, if you want to conduct a Frye hearing.

Baez goes to the lectern to object to the state’s instruction. The judge asks if he has an alternative one. Baez says that they did not know the judge would be requesting one, but that the defense can prepare one. The judge asks who is going to be their first witness. Baez says that to delay the need for the instruction immediately, they can call Dr. Jane Bock. The judge tells Baez to go ahead and prepare one, and between the two versions, the judge will create a final version of his own.

The defense calls Jennifer Welch to the stand (I think this is the fifth time she has been called). She is (still) a CSI Investigator for the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. She authored a report dated February 1st, 2009. She says she doesn’t have one with that date on it, Dorothy Sims, who is doing the direct exam, asks the witness if she has the “End of Day Observations” with regards to clearing of the scene December 12th – 14th. The witness has that report. Sims asks the witness if she can explain what her observations were.

Welch testifies that on that day, December 14th, 2009, she observed that the area had been completely cleared of leaf litter and branches. This had commenced on the 12th. In the flatter areas of the surface, the area had been cleared to a depth of 0-4 inches, in the places where there were tree roots and crevices, the area had been cleared to a depth of 0-10 inches,.

Sims then asks if she has another report – one with page 22 on the bottom, and the witness says yeah, that’s the one she just testified to.

Good God. Sims only examines like 1 out of 20 witnesses, and it’s for life altering testimony like “We picked up leaves” – you would think Sims could be more on the ball, right? What a crack defense team this group is. Casey has the “Dream Team”, too. Only hers is the Nightmare version of the dream.

Sims says “Did you read the last sentence?” The witness looks and says “Yeah that was that thing I said about the tree roots.”

Well, you know, give Sims a break. The witness read three sentences. You can’t expect Sims to keep track of all three sentences and stand at the lectern at the same time.

The witness testifies that when she took the photographs upon first arriving at the scene, she did not move the remains or clear away anything that was on top of the skull or on top of the evidence. The overhanging vines were cut and tied back, but the evidence itself was not disturbed in any way.

The witness confirms that when the photographs are entered into the OCSD evidence database, they are entered by Call Numbers. Sims asks the witness if she is familiar with a photograph with the call number of 1932. The witness says she has no such call number. Sims finally finds a picture of the cleared scene for the witness to identify.

Sims then asks the witness what happened to the log that was next to the skull initially. The witness says it was moved by Chief Medical Investigator Hansen and Welch’s supervisor during the process of clearing the scene.

Sims shows the witness another picture – this time of the bags once the overhanging vines had been removed, but the ground vegetation was still in place.

Sims is done.

Ashton asks the witness if she can orient the first photo – she says she can’t. There are no landmarks to help with knowing where exactly this picture was taken.

Ashton is done

Sims asks again about the call numbers. They are database generated. Sims asks if she has the call numbers. The witness says she does. Sims asks the witness if she would be able to verify call numbers from the photos taken on December 11th. The witness says that unless she had her report in front of her and the call numbers, she wouldn’t be able to tell on which specific day the photo was taken. Sims says “But you would be able to verify that it was taken sometime from December 11th through the end of the investigation?” The witness says yes. Sims says “And do you have those all numbers readily available?” The witness says she does. Sims says “And would one of them be 1838?” The witness look sand says “I don’t have a all number 1838.” Sims asks her what call numbers she has and the witness reads them all out. Sims is done.

The witness steps down – still subject to recall.

I wonder if the jury found that exchange as amusing as I did.

The defense then calls Dr, Jane Bock. She is a botanist. Her specialties are plant anatomy, plant ecology and forensic botany. Forensic botany is the application of plant science to the law. She has a PhD in botany. She is a retired botany professor. She has authored about 80 peer reviewed articles and written 3 books. She is accepted as an expert.

In this case, Dr. Bock reviewed the crime scene photos taken by the OSD and the photos taken by the medial examiner. She also visited the recovery site and read the Medial Examiners report, the description of the site Jennifer Welch compiled. She read a report by another Botanist, David Hall.

Bock visited the site on February 1st, 2009m she had a photographer with her, a Patrick McKenna, He took several photos of the scene and of her work.

Sims (still doing the questioning today) shows her an enlarged photograph taken while she was at the site. She identifies “leaf litter” in the photograph and defines “leaf litter” as leaves that fall off trees,. (Good God. How stupid are the people in Florida since I moved away – first we have someone googling “Shovel” then we have someone saying “explain “leaf litter” to me, Dr”.)

Sims asks the witness – after having read the reports, reviewed the photos and visited the site, if she has formulated an opinion as to the shortest period of time that Caylee’s remains could have been at the site. (Which is an odd question – it doesn’t matter the minimum time – you’d think, if the defense is arguing “someone moved the body”, that they would be more interested in maximum time. Or maybe Sims is leading up to that…..)

The witness says two weeks is the minimum time the body could have been placed at the site, and when Sims asks if the witness could tell when the body was placed there – the witness answers “no”.

Now Sims asks “And what is the basis for your belief that the body was placed there two weeks prior to its discovery…” and you know, this is disingenuous and misleading. That’s not what the witness said at all. She said “at a MINIMUM – two weeks…” which means it could have been there NO LESS than two weeks – but it could have been more. The body could have been placed there a year before – the witness never said “Oh. The body hadn’t been there more than two weeks….” I hope the state clears this up on cross. Or even that the witness herself clears it up.

The witness doesn’t seem too interested in clearing up her testimony – she answers Sims question regarding why she came to that (misstated) conclusion with “because of the leaf litter.”

Sims also asks about the vegetation that was found inside the car, and if this vegetation was the same as the vegetation at the scene. Ashton makes a foundational objection, Sims hasn’t even established if this witness ever looked at the vegetation from the car. And now I’m thinking maybe Sims misspoke with the “minimum” thing – maybe she meant to ask “maximum”. Sims is so flighty and unorganized I’m thinking that could be a possibility.

Sims lays the foundation and re-asks the question. Bock says that the vegetation in the car was not consistent with the vegetation at the scene. Bock says that the vegetation from the car was from a Camphor tree. There is not a camphor tree at the site.

Sims asks the witness if the field of Botany trains botanists to estimate the lifespan of a root by measuring the diameter of that root – even if they don’t know the species of the root.

This generates a sidebar. The objection is sustained – and Sims comes back to the lectern and starts asking “Dr. Hall” questions. The witness tells her “I’m Dr. Bock.” Told ya Sims was flighty and unorganized. Good God.

Sims asks the witness if, by looking at the photographs of the vegetation and tree roots at the scene, if she is able to tell how old those roots are.

The witness says no, she can’t, because she doesn’t know what plant those roots came from, and size and growth rate vary greatly among plants due to different environmental factors. In order for the witness to determine how fast a particular root was growing, first she would need to determine what plat the root came from; then she would conduct time spaced observations on growth rates.

Ashton crosses the witness: Ashton establishes that the witness is from Colorado. He asks her if most of her experience is in that part of the country. The doctor says no, it’s not. Ashton asks the witness how much experience she has working in Florida as a botanist. The witness testifies that her PhD thesis work was done in Florida in 1966. Her thesis involved moving up and down the state studying the distribution of water hyacinths in freshwater bodies. She has also worked on other research projects in Florida, like studying the food habits of the tortoise, which is an endangered species and a vegetarian.

Ashton asks if most of the doctor’s work is in grasses and studying grasslands. (Well, this just gets more and more exciting – distribution of water hyacinths, feeding habits of tortoises – grasslands. Cross botanist off my list of “jobs I could tolerate doing.”) Bock says that a large part of her work is studying grasslands and grasses here and in South America.

Ashton asks her if she would agree that different parts of the country have differing plant ecologies. The doctor says yes.

Ashton asks the witness to describe the area where the body was found, based on her visit there and her review of the photos as the clearing unfolded. The witness says that in the ecological classifications the area would be known as a “swamp hardwood” area. But the witness also says that part of the plants that are common there are upland plants. Ashton asks her if this is an area that would be underwater frequently, but the witness doesn’t understand what his valuation is of “frequent”. Ashton asks her if the plants that she found there required a great deal of water, and she said yes, at certain times of the year. The witness agrees that it is an area that is underwater occasionally – or wet.

Ashton then asks the witness about her “two week minimum” thing – and asks her if that estimation was based on all the botanical evidence in the area and she says it is. Ashton asks her about the roots growing through the hair mass and he asks her if it is her opinion that those roots could have grown that much in two weeks in December

She says they could have “accumulated there” in two weeks, yes. And Ashton asks her if there is a difference between “grown there” and “accumulated there”. She says there is. . Ashton says that he specifically wants to know if they could have grown there. She says yes. Ashton asks if that is also true of the canvas laundry bag with the roots actually growing into the fabric, could those roots have grown there in two weeks. The witness says yes. He asks if she saw the photographs of the bones, with the roots actually growing into the bone. He asks if that, too, could have happened in two weeks. She says she isn’t a bone expert, but from what she knows of root penetration, she suspects so.

Ashton asks if she has ever had contact with a skeleton with root growth in it before, and she says she has – with a skeleton that had been in place for many years. Ashton directs her to her deposition where she said she had no experience with bones, and the witness clarifies by saying that her answer in her deposition was to a question dealing with her teaching experience – but she belongs to an organization where she came into contact with a crime scene and there were forensic anthropologists and forensic archaeologists and she observed this skeleton that had been there for 10 years. She did see root growth on this skeleton.

Ashton asks the witness if she has seen the photographs of the skull in its pristine condition before debris was removed where there is leaf litter at least up to the bottom of the nose. She says yes, but she doesn’t know when individual leaves were removed.

Ashton shows her the photograph and asks if she sees leaves up to the nose/ear area. She says she sees one leaf on top of the skull. Ashton says he isn’t asking about the leaves on top of the skull. She says she supposes that could be leaf litter – but it could also be humus. Ashton says whatever it is; it has risen to the level of the bottom of the nose/ear level. The witness says “ok” Ashton asks if it is her testimony that this leaf litter could accumulate in that form in two weeks.

The witness says that there are other considerations about this picture. Ashton asks her to answer the question he asked. She says “yes”. The he shows her another photo – this one of the skull when it was first brought to the Medical Examiner’s office. This picture illustrates the roots and vegetation growing into the skull, and shows the leaves and debris that was collected with the skull. The leaves are in varying stages of decomposition. Some are green, some are yellow, some are completely brown and some are grey. Ashton asks if this is a reflection of variation in decomposition levels. The witness says yes and it is also a reflection of when the leaves fell from trees. Some fall from trees when they have no chlorophyll left, others are blown into a place, others shed their leaves when the leaves are still bright green and the chlorophyll hasn’t retreated.

Ashton asks yes, but are you saying that all this debris and all these leaves right around the skull could have all occurred in a two week time period in December. The witness asks if he is talking about the left side or the right side of the skull and Ashton answers with “either side.” The witness says she is not entirely certain how this collection of the skull was made. Ashton explains to her “hypothetically” how the Media Investigator collected the skull – scooping some of the debris as best he could that was around it. The witness says that she imagines some of those leaves were pushed toward the skull and Ashton says he doesn’t know how they couldn’t have been.

But Ashton wants her to acknowledge that the leaves themselves are at varying degrees of decomposition, and must have fallen at different times. She does finally concede this point. Ashton says that some of these leaves have been off the tree a lot longer than 2 weeks. She says yes, and lying under other things, perhaps. Ashton says that his point is that if these leaves have fallen to the level that they are shown in the photograph, then that skull has been there a lot longer than two weeks. The witness answers that given his hypothesis that the skull had laid there undisturbed, the answer would be yes.

Ashton says well, if you aren’t basing your two week timetable on the leaf litter what are you basing it on? She said that as shown in the picture she took when she was at the site on February 1st the ground was covered in leaves, and this leaf litter had accumulated on ground that was scraped bare by the 15th of December.

Ashton asks the witness if she is familiar with leaf fall rates for trees that are indigenous to Florida, what times of year they drop their leaves and at what rate? The witness says yes, she is.

Ashton shows her the large photograph that was taken on February 1st when she was at the site in 2009. There is obviously less foliage and leaf litter, but the witness says that as far as equivalency to the photo of the skull, this is “about the same”. Ashton asks her if she measured the amount of leaf litter when she was there, and the witness says no – but she asks Ashton if anyone else did and he quips “:The neat thing about his is you don’t get to ask me questions.”

Ashton asks the witness if it is true that the photograph she took was of an area stripped of overhanging vines. She says she wasn’t there before, but she did see overhanging vines in the other photographs. Ashton asks if the area in her photograph would be better able to have leaf litter blown about by winds than the area would have when it was densely overgrown and had hanging vines everywhere. The witness says no. She says there are just as many impediments to blowing leaves in the cleared picture as there were in the uncleared picture.

Ashton wants to know why, in the cleared photograph, there is a lot more leave fall and drift on the left side of the picture than on the right. Ashton asks if that isn’t from wind scattering the leaves. The witness says not necessarily, she can think of several reasons – one of them being looky-loos. She says that a lot of people were visiting this site in February – and they could be the source of the leaf pattern. Wind action and animals are others. And the leaf fall themselves. Some of the trees in the picture are evergreens – they drop pine needless and there are other trees in the picture that shed in the fall and winter.

The doctor says that she can’t exactly place on the picture where the skull was recovered from, she wasn’t actually told first hand. Her photographer had been to the site before with some other forensic expert witnesses, and he told her about where the skull was recovered from, but she’s not sure in this picture where that would be.

Ashton says to the witness – the bottom line doctor, is that you aren’t able to render to this jury an opinion on when Caylee’s body was left at the site, are you? The witness says “I thought I had rendered one.” He asks her in another way “Are you prepared to render an opinion as to when Caylee’s remains were placed at the site.” And she says “no”. And Ashton says: “So you can’t render an opinion as to when she was placed there.” And again she says “I thought I did render one.” And Ashton says “Now you’ve lost me….” And she lost me, too. I wish he would bring up the minimum/maximum of two weeks thing. Ashton asks one more time – when do you think these remains were left there? And she says “A couple of weeks before.” Ashton then directs her to her deposition – where she said she wasn’t able to render an opinion as to when the remains were left at the site.

After looking at her deposition, she says that yeah, she doesn’t know exactly when the remains were placed there – but her best guess is what she has testified to today.

Okay – finally Ashton gets to the minimum/maximum thing. He says to her that on direct she said it was a minimum of two weeks – and he asks her if now she also thinks it was a maximum of two weeks – she says no. Ashton asks her if she is of the opinion that the body was only there for two weeks. She says it’s possible. And Ashton says – but it’s also possible it was there much longer. And she says yes.

Ashton is done.

Re-direct – The plant lady, despite the jury having seen the skull with vines and roots growing through it, states unequivocally to Sims that roots can’t grow through bone. When asked if a root can grow through a hole in a bag, the plant lady will only give the limited answer of “depends on what type of root it is.” I don’t like experts who state obvious things are impossible. Like plants can’t grow through bags with holes in them. That’s just stupid. I distrust everything else she says because I know she was lying about that.

Sims then asks the witness about the log that was, at one time, next to the skull at the recovery site. Sims asks if there was leaf litter on the log. The witness says no, there wasn’t, and this inspired her to look at the log closer.. She was curious as to whether or not the log had been turned over or if it had laid there for a long time. Sims asks the witness if there was anything in the documentation about the scene that addressed the log – its dimensions, weight, and any vegetation that was on top of it or near it. The witness says that in Welch’s report she stated that it took two people to move the log. Sims asks if there was any mention of the plant material that was underneath the log. The witness says no, there wasn’t. Sims asks what this description of the vegetative material underneath and around the log could have told the witness, and she says that it would have been helpful in determining how long the log had been there, how far along in the decompositional process it was and what kind of plants were around it.

Yeah, I don’t understand all the fascination with the log. Who gives a fuck how long it had laid out in the woods? What does that have to do with anything? Even if Casey had beat Caylee to death with the log – how long it had laid out there still wouldn’t have been important. The defense just continues to confuse me with their emphasis on things that I find so trivial.

Now the plant lady is drawing on the magic easel. I’ll bet Baez told Sims to have the plant lady draw on the magic easel. The plant lady is drawing humus and leaf litter. Sims gets her to say that if the humus is wet, that items placed on it will sink. I guess Sims is saying that the skull was placed there and it sank into the leaves. Up to the ears.

Re-cross. Yeah, Ashton asks if that’s what she is saying, that the skull sank. She says it could have – she doesn’t know. Ashton sys could it have also been placed there and the leaves fell around it over a period of several months. She says maybe. She also says it could have been pushed into the leaves.

Ashton asks the witness if she is aware that one of the bones from the skeleton was found buried in 4 inches of muck. She says she wasn’t aware of that. Ashton asks her if that would change her opinion on how long the skull had laid out in the woods – if she knew that the hip bone was buried in 4 inches of muck. She says that maybe a dog buried it. Ashton almost chokes trying to hold back his laughter. “A dog buried it?” He asks incredulously. “They do that, you now” she says. ”Or coyotes. I don’t know if you have coyotes here.” Ashton tells her no, Florida doesn’t have coyotes – but he’s already picking his stuff up and making a hasty retreat.

The witness makes like a plant lady and LEAVES. (Get it?)

Once she is gone, the judge takes up the matter of the special instruction the prosecution gets to have as a sanction for Mr. Eikelenboom’s late discovery. The judge fashioned it from the proposed instructions submitted by both sides. He reads it to the attorneys:

“All expert witnesses were required by order of the court to provide reports of their findings by providing 1. A Complete statement of their opinions 2. The reasons for those opinions or conclusions and 3.. Any data or other information considered by the witness in formulation their opinions or conclusions. These reports were due at a time prior to the trial in this cause. The report of this witness was not provided to the state of Florida until Saturday June 18th 2011.You may consider this fact when judging the credibility of the witness’s testimony.”

The judge asks the state if Eikelenboom provided a partial report. Ashton says no, he provided an affidavit. In his deposition he referred to it as that – an affidavit. The judge holds up the ½ page affidavit and asks the state “Is this what he provided?” The state confirms.

The defense objects to the instruction and renews all previous motions and objections regarding this matter.

The judge says before he brings the jury in and reads them the instruction; he needs to have the witness brought in so he can make an inquiry of the witness. He need\s to make a three pronged finding for the record before he can impose the sanction.

Mr. Richard Eikelenboom takes the stand for questioning by the court.

In response to the judge’s questions, the witness tells the court that he was first retained by the defense in July 2010, when he was first contacted to examine the evidence in the case. The witness says that except for the affidavit, he was not told that he had to write another report outlining his opinions. The judge reads the court’s order to the witness and asks if he was ever informed of such, the witness says no, he was never told these things. The witness says that prior to February; he was living in the Netherlands. He was communicating with the defense team via phone, email and Skype. Between December of 2010 and May 1st 2011, he was never asked to summarize his findings into a report format. His primary contact person from the defense team was Jose Baez. The judge asks if between May 1st and now he was ever asked to submit a report. The witness responds that last Saturday he talked to Baez after they went to the prosecutions office to do a deposition and were turned away. At that meeting with Baez, he was asked to write a report. So on Saturday night, they wrote a short report. Between December 2010 and May 2011, he has communicated with the defense team about examining the evidence, then again after he examined it, then he kind of lost track of the case and didn’t hear anything for quite a while. But he was readily available, and the defense could have contacted him at any time.

Baez then asks the witness some questions. He asks if this is the first time he has ever been asked to submit a preliminary report on a case. He says that he has written reports for cases on specific tests that he has run. Baez then asks if most communication he had with Eikelenboom was done through Eikelenboom’s wife or Miss Medina. The witness agrees, they had little direct contact. The affidavit was written because this was what his wife told him to do. The affidavit he submitted was what he thought was required. He never spoke with Miss Medina directly, nor did he talk to Baez.

Baez asks the witness if he remembers exactly what his wife told him was required. He doesn’t remember exactly, He doesn’t remember the conversation at all. He remembers the affidavit, it was a busy time for him, and this is when they were transferring from Holland to the US. The opinions he formulated were only formulated on Saturday, as he and Baez were talking and discussing the case. These were not opinions that he had before and that they discussed in the past.

Once he formulated these opinions, they went to the Prosecutors office to undergo a deposition. Ashton refused them entry – he was rude. Miss Medina then had him write a report with his opinions, which he did and emailed to Baez.

Ashton then asks the witness if there is any opinion he formulated on Saturday afternoon that could not have been developed 4 months ago in a sit down meeting with Baez. The witness says it depends on if the information was available 4 months ago. Ashton asks if there was any new information that Baez gave him on Saturday, and the witness says the information was new to him, because he didn’t follow the case. Ashton asks if he was given any new reports or factual information that he didn’t have already. The witness says yes, between Friday and Saturday he got crime scene pictures and FBI reports. He received the entire folder just last week, after he got the subpoena and realized that he was to testify.

The judge then makes the following findings of fact: The violation of the court order was willful, not inadvertent; that it should have been clearly conveyed to the witness what was required. This violation was substantial, not trivial, since it is in relation to DNA. Because the violation has already delayed testimony and cause hardship on the state, therefore it is prejudicial to the opposing party.

The court is limiting this witness’s testimony in the area of DNA analysis on the decompositional fluid. The court is giving the Defense until Saturday to request and make motions for a Frye hearing. The Frye hearing will be held on Tuesday of next week.

The jury is returned after the doctor removes the information regarding DNA testing of Decompositional fluid from his power point presentation. The judge reads the special instruction to the jury.

The witness is brought back to the stand. He is a former employee of the National Laboratory in the Netherlands. This is the forensic institute for the Justice Department. in the Netherlands. He and his wife now own a company called “Independent Forensic Services”.

Ashton wants to voir dire the witness. He points out that the highest degree this witness has obtained is what is referred to as an engineer’s degree in Holland. It is equivalent to something above a bachelor’s degree, but not quite a Master’s degree. And his degree is in biochemistry – with a specialty in Luminol. And also specialized study and experience in trace recovery. He was not certified by the National Laboratory to do DNA analysis. He did trace recovery. And even though he has no training in, or experience in performing, DNA tests, he and his wife opened a business and appointed the witness “Director of DNA”.

The state objects to his qualifications as an expert.

Baez gets up to rehabilitate what sounds like lousy credentials. He asks the witness how many cases the witness worked on where he recovered and processed DNA in the Netherlands, prior to opening his business,. This is the wrong question, because the answer seems to be “none”. The witness doesn’t come right out and say “none”, he explains that he was the co-coordinator of cases – he would receive the results of the DNA tests and determine the next step that the case needed to go through. It was only when he opened his own business that he actually started doing the testing himself. His business was accredited in the Netherlands – something similar to ASCLAD accreditation here in the US. In the Netherlands his laboratory was contracted by the government to perform DNA testing, and he was called as an expert witness over 70 times.

He worked on the JonBenet Ramsey case and testified as an expert 3 times in Colorado.

Baez offers him as an expert, the state objects. The court accepts him.

They break for lunch and Baez has another issue he needs the court to resolve. This morning the defense was given some documents, including a CD disc including documents and information recovered from the Anthony’s desktop computer. The state had this information in April and the state’s witnesses already testified about it. One of the things the defense found on this disc was photographs of the “shot girls” which may have been viewed on the Anthony home computer. This is interesting because in Mr; George’s questioning of the witnesses he referred to the fact that Casey Anthony would instruct the girls on the clothes that they should wear. This leads Baez to believe that the state had prior notice of this discovery. Law Enforcement had this computer since July 16th, 2008, going on 3 years now and the defense is just now getting these items and reports – after the state’s compute experts have testified. The defense objects to any presentations relating to these computer items.

Burdick responds to Baez’s motion. She says that the discovery items were related to a brief investigation at the end of last week. Apparently a citizen called the Orange County Sheriff’s Department about an inmate who may have had contact with Casey Anthony at a time when the inmate was in the Orange County Jail. That matter was investigated Thursday or Friday of last week, a report was generated, a statement was taken over the phone from that witness, a transcript was produced immediately, and was turned over. The witnesses name was April Whalen, apparently her child died in a swimming pool and the child was found by the child’s grandfather, who immediately started administering CPR and called 911. Miss Whalen was in an adjacent cell to Casey for a brief period of time. Miss Whalen says that she did not talk to Casey, but she doesn’t remember if she talked to other inmates, and that is being explored right now, if there was indirect contact between Miss Whalen and Casey.

With regards to the computer information, this is just filtered items from the hard drive that Mr. Baez has had for years. This information will only be used in rebuttal is Miss Anthony or anyone else were to make claims about the computer usage on June 16th, because there was a lot of it. This information does rebut a lot of what Mr. Baez stated in opening statements. This will be used as a demonstrative aid either in rebuttal or during Miss Anthony’s cross examination.

The judge asks questions to clarify that the computer information is just a redacted version of what has always been on the hard drive. Miss Burdick says this is so. She says that she would have expected Baez to concentrate on the activity on June 16th, but if he didn’t, the state did, and since the state has already suffered the penalty of exclusion by not turning over their PowerPoint presentation, they decided to turn this demonstrative aid over as soon as possible.

The judge asks if they are going to use Miss Whalen, and Burdick says that based on her statement, no, but as the investigation continues, there may be something from it that might prove useful in a rebuttal case.

The court finds that items 1 through 6 are not a discovery violation.

Baez says that the discovery of the computer material was a violation because the expert’s reports didn’t specifically report on the activity of June 16th.

Burdick says that they had the hard drive – they could have filtered the information if they wanted to. In Baez’s opening statement he laid out a timeline for the morning of June 16th. The activity from the computer and the instant messages contained therein negate that timeline.

The judge asks if the state had provided reports to the defense regarding the computer activity of June 16th. Baez says no. Perry asks if the defense has the hard drive – Baez says yes, but that’s everything, billions of pieces of data. And their computer experts issued reports on opinions on what information they had. This did not include information on the 16th,

The judge says that the 16th was the last day the victim was seen by her grandparents, and after hearing the defense’s opening statement, it is clear that the 16th was a date of great importance. A so-called timeline of activity, dealing with how all the players spent their day on the 16th. It seems like a review of these dates with regards to the computer would have been important.

If the hard drive was provided to the defense, it was left up to you to decide what kind of searches and filtering you wanted to perform, and what days you chose to look at. And if you chose not to look at any particular date, that’s not the state’s fault. You knew what dates were important. What you choose to do with evidence given you is your business.

The judge is allowing the exhibit.

Eikelenboom is back on the stand, and he is explaining touch DNA. Rather than obtained through bodily fluids such as blood, semen or saliva, touch DNA is obtained through the hands when an object is touched. There are different factors that determine if one will get a DNA profile from touch.

This is when Eikelenboom brings out his PowerPoint presentation.

There are skin cells, or epithelial cells on the hand. There are several layers of skin, and it is the lower layers that will contain DNA. Slight touches will generally not yield enough cells for a DNA analysis, but with violent crimes, where there is more vigorous holds, grabs and forceful contact, the chances of getting the cells needed for a DNA profile increase.

Unlike blood or urine or semen, there are no presumptive tests for skin cells. The examiner will use an alternate light source to look for sweat stains. This is to just form a working hypothesis of where there might be touch or skin cells.

If no sweat is found, the examiner will just put forth conclusions as to where there might have been force applied, and look for skin cells there. For instance, in a rape case, if clothing is torn, you can look in those areas for skin cells. Also, skin cells can be obtained from someone wearing clothing. Or from touch or “forceful grip”.

But even when you find skin cells, it is still difficult to determine if you will obtain a DNA profile. The top layers of the skin – especially the hands – are dying skin cells, and they do not have enough DNA for a profile. Sticky or rough surfaces (such as duct tape) are generally better at holding and receiving skin cells.

If duct tape is applied to someone’s face, as in this case, Eikelenboom would expect to find a DNA profile on the stick side. He would expect to find skin cells and also saliva cells from the lips and mouth. If the duct tape was in the elements, he would expect the DNA to break down, but with PCR methods today, this DNA could be amplified to find a profile.

Baez asks Eikelenboom if he is aware that there were two partial DNA profiles on the duct tape. One on the sticky side and one on the non-sticky side. These were from the examiners at the FBI lab. Baez wants to know if this DNA could have over-ridden any other DNA samples that were on the duct tape. Eikelenboom said maybe – it depends on how much DNA was originally there from both samples.

Baez then asks about insects and maggots, and whether or not Eikelenboom has ever successfully extracted DNA from insects. Eikelenboom said that he has been successful in extracting DNA from maggots – if the maggots have been feeding on blood and the blood has not been digested, it is possible to extract that blood and obtain a DNA profile.

Baez is through with direct. Ashton crosses the witness. Eikelenboom says that he is currently working on his PhD at the University of Denver. In the business that he owns with his wife he has a lot of advisors who are more experienced in DNA. They started the business in the Netherlands, and moved to the US where there is more work. Ashton asked the witness if testifying in this case would be good for his business. The witness says he doesn’t need the work; in fact his lab isn’t even technically open yet to receive work. And good help is hard to find. There aren’t a lot of good DNA technicians out there. There are other labs that do the same work that he does, but he is more experienced than they are.

Ashton then seizes on this statement and asks about what it is, exactly, he does that is so different from other labs. Basically all he dies is run extra replication processes through PCR. Instead of running 24 amplification cycles, he runs 30.

The witness says that he must have answered the question wrong. He explains that his “process” is not only running the tests on the DNA – but finding the DNA to begin with, which half the difficulty is. This is also part of his specialized abilities. No matter how sensitive the technique is, if you can’t find the DNA to begin with, the techniques won’t be useful.

He and his company came up with an alternative to the traditional method of swabbing samples to retrieve DNA – they used a cutting method, cutting actual samples out of the material and dissolving these samples in a test tube to obtain DNA. This is where his methods are very successful. He has been very astute at knowing where, exactly, to cut the samples. Otherwise, you could take thousands of samples before finding skin cells.

Ashton says he wasn’t really concerned about the sampling; he was more interested in the actual testing. Ashton says that his testing methods are really nothing unique, that it’s simply running the amplification PCR extra cycles. The witness agrees.

Ashton asks if the witness has ever run DNA testing on the Megaselia scalaris, the humpback fly. The witness says no. Ashton clarifies that when the witness is able to obtain DNA from insects and maggots, the time period between the feeding by the insect and the testing by the examiner has to be short – otherwise, the maggot will have ingested all the blood that contains the DNA sample. The witness says yes, or if the insect dies shortly after feeding.

Ashton asks the witness what environmental affect is the most destructive to DNA. The witness says he thinks it is a combination of moisture and temperature. A hot, wet environment is the worst for DNA. Along with a bacteria filled environment.

Ashton then asks specifically about the duct tape. He points out to the witness that if you put a piece of duct tape on a person’s mouth and then rip it away, that you will probably bring the top layer, dying skin cells and also the living sub-surface skin cells. Ashton then points out that if you place duct tape on the mouth, and then don’t rip it away, that only the dying, top layer cells will be on the tape. The witness says that it depends on how forcefully one had applied the tape. But Ashton points out that no matter how forcefully the tape is applied, it still will only be in contact with the top, dying cells, and the witness agrees.

Ashton asks that if one was to place this duct tape on someone’s face, and not rip it off, and instead put that person with that tape on their face into a swampy area, an erstwhile dump, that is prone to flooding, in the hot summer sun of Florida, and left that person there to rot until all of their skin cells decomposed, that the likelihood of obtaining any skin cells from that duct tape were extremely remote.

The witness says that in the scenario that he has described, it would be possible to lose all the cells, but he only need a very few cells in order to create a profile using low copy number DNA.

Ashton then asks why it is that scientists don’t’ swab the outside of a bone to collect DNA – why they swab the inside of the bone for marrow – isn’t that because there isn’t expected to be cells on the outside of the bone – those cells decompose. The witness agrees that it would be very difficult to get cells from the outside of the bones.

Ashton points out that in the contaminated masking tape, the only thing that would be overwritten in an existing DNA profile, would be the very same areas that the second DNA profile had. Since the contaminating profile had only one location defined – allele 17 – the only thing it would mask is allele 17 at any underlying DNA profile.

The witness says that this sample would have been a good one for his testing methods. He thinks that they might have gotten a more complete profile. Ashton asks if he asked to re-test the tape, the witness he mentioned to Baez that he could test it. Ashton asks if he knows if any other of the pieces of evidence were tested or re-tested for DNA. The witness has no knowledge of what was tested or wasn’t.

Baez asks about the witness’s laboratory, and the fact that it’s in a barn. Baez points out that this witnesses lab is internationally known and respected. Regarding the “getting work from this case” and the exposure he would receive by testifying, the witness has already had national exposure (through the JonBenet case, assumedly), and that the witness doesn’t need additional exposure to drum up business.

After a sidebar, Baez is allowed to ask the witness specifically about the cases the witness has worked on (Ashton opened that door by questioning the witnesses pecuniary interests and his seeking exposure).

The witness testifies that he was first involved in a case in the US in the Masters case. This was the 1987 death of Peggy Hettrick. Timothy Masters was convicted of her killing in 1999. In 2008, the case was re-opened and the conviction was vacated due to the DNA on the victim. The sample collected was only a partial profile, which was sent to Eikelenboom to amplify using his techniques. The DNA was later found to be consistent with Hettrick’s ex-boyfriend, not Timothy Masters.

This case garnered Eikelenboom and his laboratory international attention.

Baez then asks about the “extra PCR cycles” Ashton spoke of as being the only thing this witness does in his process. Baez has the witness explain about the more sensitive mini kits that this witness uses. These “kits” contain more sensitive chemicals. This witness uses a “mini filer”. This witness also uses a longer extraction time. And special filters. He says that it is a whole process and every step is important. This is what allows his lab to extract DNA when other labs can’t (This was objected to and stricken).

The witness then describes and illustrates the machines that he uses. Which is all irrelevant – because he didn’t find anything with his fancy machines, you know.

Baez then asked the witness to illustrate some of the items that he was able to obtain DNA from even though they had been exposed to the elements. He showed some items from the Hettrick case, then some other items that had sat outside, or sat in the water.

Baez asks if the witness was willing to do testing on some of the evidence in this case – and willing to do it pro-bono. The witness says he was. Baez asks if it was the prosecution that objected to the witness testing the items. And that brings a sidebar.

After the sidebar, the jury is sent for the break, and the attorneys hash out some other issues. Baez wants the court to take judicial notice that there are other forms of DNA testing which were not done. The judge says that there is a danger in taking judicial notice of also burden-shifting. And since these cases are routinely overturned- some things are better left unsaid.

After the break Baez asks the witness about the partial DNA fragment found on the tape – the one with the 17 allele. The witness explains that while you need 13 allele matches to positively match a DNA profile to a person – you only need a non-match at one allele to exclude someone as a match.

Ashton is up for questioning again: He asks about the early days of DNA testing, the days of RFLP, when testing could only be done on quarter sized samples of blood or bigger. These days, with PCR amplification, one can get a DNA sample from a drop of blood. As these samples became smaller, the concerns for contamination have become greater. Since profiles have now become possible on even specks of blood, there are concerns that the blood samples may not even have anything to do with the crime at hand – the sample could have been left there at a different time.

Ashton says that if the witness had tested the tape in this case, there are three results he could have obtained.

1. He could have found nothing – but that doesn’t mean anything, the DNA could have decomposed or degraded.
2. He could have found Caylee’s DNA
3. He could have found an unknown profile – and there would have been absolutely no way to know if it had anything to do with this crime or not.

The witness points out that in the third scenario – he may have been able to exclude someone. But Ashton says the tests are so hypersensitive – it picks up DNA profiles that sometimes have nothing to do with the crime at hand.

Ashton has the witness pull up again the power point slide with the items of evidence that the witness has found DNA evidence on. None of these evidence items were associated with skeletonized remains.

Ashton is through.

Baez asks the witness if it makes a difference whether or not the items were associated with skeletonized remains. The witness was testing the items, not the bodies, whether they were skeletonized or not.

Baez also says that the three results that he could have obtained from testing the duct tape –there was also a 4th result. He could have found no evidence of the duct tape being wrapped around the victim’s mouth.

Baez is through.

Ashton then asks if the DNA on the tape would also decompose. The witness says it would have.

Ashton is through.

The witness is finally excused.

The next defense witness is Yuri Melich. AKA Orlando Dick.

Baex asks about the search warrants that were served on the home. The first one was in August. Baez asks if the witness found any print outs of papers regarding chloroform. He didn’t. The witness also didn’t find any containers, receipts or chemistry kits or any implements used to make chloroform.

There was a second search warrant executed in December. During this search warrant the witness also didn’t find any rags or containers, no implement used to create chloroform. No receipts or papers concerning chloroform.

Baez asks if he was specifically looking for that –and the witness says he would have to look at the specific search warrant. The witness agrees that anything relating to chloroform would have been in within the scope of the search warrant.

Another search warrant was executed on December 20th, and during this search he also didn’t find anything to do with chloroform. This search warrant did not include anything to do with chloroform. They had already searched for that, and had no reason to include it again.

During the entire investigation, the witness has never found anything to do with chloroform in the Anthony home.

On cross Burdick has the witness point out that during the first search time period, there had not yet been results from the Oak Ridge lab, which included the information that there was high levels of chloroform in the car. When the investigators finally received this information from the lab, Casey was out of jail and living at home.

On redirect Baez asks if Casey’s being out of jail precluded them from searching the home. The witness says he could have executed a search warrant at any time. After he received the lab results, the next time he got a search warrant was 4 months later. The witness says that in August when they got the results of the chloroform levels, they were still looking for a live child, Baez points out that Casey was charged with murder on October 14th, so they were obviously not looking for a live child then. Baez asks why it still took 2 months to get a search warrant that included chloroform. Did the detective not think it was important enough?

The witness is excused.

The defense’s next witness is Dr. Marcus Bain Wise. He is a research scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. His specialty is analytical chemistry. He has a PhD from Purdue. He has been at Oak Ridge for 27 years. This is the first time he has ever testified in court. And now this is the first time he has ever been accepted as an expert witness.

Baez asks the doctor the difference between a research scientist and a forensic scientist. The witness says that many times a forensic scientist is a research scientist, that a forensic scientist may run tests to push forward the science of forensics. A research scientist’s main job is to work on challenging problems and solve them through science.

Baez then asks what the difference is between a research lab and a forensic lab. The doctor says that a research laboratory generally doesn’t run forensic samples and that it usually doesn’t have the necessary protocols set up to do so. A forensic lab is set up to handle, document and test samples of evidence.

In the research lab, they don’t have written, rigid steps of protocol that are set up. They have protocols, but they are not written and no reports have to be written. They also are not subject to proficiency exams. The witness says they don’t have any quality control protocols in place.

Baez asks about contamination, and the witness doesn’t really know what Baez means – he says “”Contaminated with what?” As an analytic chemist he is aware of contaminates, but they don’t worry about that in a research setting.

They were given items to test in this case, and he was asked to perform some gas chromatography tests on some items to determine qualitative analysis (what was in the sample). Dr. Vass asked him to run the tests. Vass was not in when this witness picked the samples up from Vass’s office.

The witness ran the test for what was in the sample, (qualitative sample) he did not run a test to determine the amount of the items in the sample (quantitative sample).

He found chloroform in the sample, but it was not quantified because that would have been a meaningless number. Chloroform is a volatile chemical. It evaporates rapidly to the point where it disappears. The rate at which it decreases depends on a number of factors – the temperature, the chemical makeup of the surface, whether or not it is exposed to air or closed up.

A closed trunk of a car would slow down the evaporation.

If they had made a quantitative analysis of the amount of chloroform on that small piece of carpet that they had, it would have been a snapshot of that one little piece of carpet at one period of time. It would not have been representative of the entire piece of carpet, and it would not have been indicative of how much chloroform was originally on that piece of carpet or the entire carpet, which could have been 5 times as much, or 5000 times as much.

He was also given a gas bag sample of air from the trunk. This sample showed no chloroform. This was not surprising to the doctor, because gas bag samples typically diffuse after a couple of days.

The doctor then goes through all the same steps that Dr. Vass testified that he went through in what they did with the carpet sample – putting it through the gas chromatograph, heating it up, running it against the sample of chloroform that they bought – and all along at every step Baez points out that he wasn’t measuring the quantity.

Baez looks at the doctor’s handwritten notes and points out that the doctor noted that there was a large peak of benzene from one of the air samples that was put through one of the triple traps. The doctor says that this would indicate that there was a benzene contamination in that air sample.

Baez asks the witness if Dr. Vass is a chemist. The witness says that he is a scientist with many years experience working with the triple sorbent traps. It may not be his title, but he has many years on the job experience. Baez asks the witness if the Lab hired him as a chemist because of his PhD or because they wanted him to have on the job training.

Baez asks if they are close – the witness says they are.

Baez asks if this witness has anything negative to say about Vass. The witness says he is talented and experienced.

Back to the doctor’s notes – Baez asks about when the trap froze up. The doctor says this is a common occurrence and they simply heated up the trap to make it free flowing again.

The trap froze up again while running another sample – the air sample from the passenger area of the car.

Baez continues to go through the doctor’s handwritten notes, specifically noting every time the doctor put in little asterisks that denoted something happening. Even earth shattering things like “I forgot to turn the machine back”. Baez makes great mountains out of these molehills, saying that “none of these ‘mistakes’ would have happened if you had protocols in place.” But personally, I think these things probably happen all the time. It doesn’t change the chemical composition of the samples that were run. It’s the whole OJ effect – just because the DNA samples were picked up without gloves, that doesn’t change the DNA into OJ’s and fuck the whole thing up. Baez is trying to show that because someone forgot to turn a dial to the right before running a sample that this means that the test that identified chloroform is unreliable. I don’t think it washes.

The doctor seems to think this, too. He points out that yes, adjustments were made during testing, but he voluntarily changed settings and that didn’t make the results any less reliable.

Baez isn’t convinced of that – he keeps going on the notes asking “were there things that messed up this run? Did you catch yourself in an error there?” It’s all pathetic, actually.

And all the while the doctor keeps looking at the jury and smiling while he answers. I don’t know if he just isn’t bothered by Baez, if he thinks Baez is silly, or if it’s a smile that says “Don’t worry; I’m going to beat the shit out of this guy when he leaves the building.” I‘m hoping it’s the last one.

Then Baez starts asking about soil samples and the protocols the lab has for collecting them. The witness says that these protocols are for diminishing the chances of contamination.

Baez asks if this witness if he recommends collecting samples from locations that are free from trash, debris and chemicals that could result in false positives. The witness answers that it depends on what the objective is. He notes that some samples that might come from a trash heap – you have to take samples from wherever there are.

Baez asks the witness if he’s aware that there was trash in the vehicle where the carpet was collected from. He says he knew that. He does not know where the trash was.

Baez asks if the witness requested a non stained portion of the carpet as a control sample – to see if the chloroform was coming from some other point source. The witness says that he didn’t request the samples at all.

Baez then says – “but, instead, as a control sample, you tested this carpet against cars from a junkyard, right?” The witness says he wasn’t the one who decided what comparisons were made or what the control samples were to be. The witness says he doesn’t know exactly where the control samples were taken from. Baez asks if the witness was a co-author of the report. The witness was. Baez asks if the report says that the cars were from a junkyard. He says yes, they were. Baez then tries to imply that the witness was lying before when he said he didn’t know that the cars were from a junkyard.

Baez asks if this witness made an addition to the report. He did. The witness added to the report that these compounds found could have been from many different sources.

Baez then asks the witness if he is aware that the air samples were sent to his lab six weeks after the carpet samples were sent. The witness is unaware of the air samples at first. He then says he was told about the air samples and where they were taken from. The witness tries very hard not to speculate on the air quality at different periods of time.

Ashton crosses the witness. Ashton immediately establishes that this witness has had extensive work in collecting environmental air samples as part of his work. The witness also has worked closely with Dr. Vass in Vass’s work with decompositional research.

IN the carpet sample from the trunk, the highest peak and major component was chloroform. They also saw peaks associated with gasoline. The chloroform was greater than gasoline. The witness says he would not have been surprised to find gasoline in the trunk of a car, but the chloroform surprised him, because, firstly, chloroform is a suspected cancer causing agent, and something he would not expect to find in the trunk of a vehicle. He cannot say where it came from.

When the witness first saw the chloroform he and Vass contemplated why it was there. They looked at some MSDS sheets for car related products and couldn’t find any place it might have come from. They were not able to find any source for its existence.

Ashton then asks about polymers and their ability to trap chloroform. The doctor explains that any carbon based molecule (such as plastics) have the ability to adhere chemically to other carbon based molecules, which most volatile chemicals contain. (This means that if the car liner was any type of “indoor/outdoor carpet” which contains plastics, then it would be good at “trapping” the chloroform before all of it evaporated.)

Ashton then has the witness again go through all the reasons he couldn’t make a quantitative analysis. .The piece of carpet he had could have been the “most stained” or the “least stained”. It was only one small piece of the puzzle. The actual quantity could not be known.

Ashton asks about the control air samples or “blank” air samples that the doctor ran against the air samples from the car. The doctor had described them as “mostly” clean. He used that qualifier because no matter where you take air from – any room – is going to have contaminants in it, if you look hard enough.

Ashton asks about all the notations in the doctor’s report – all the little asterisks with noted problems. It is his responsibility to note these so that when they compile protocols and standards for other labs, they know the kinds of things that can go wrong and what to include in standards and procedures. The doctor says there was nothing extraordinary that went wrong, there was nothing out of the ordinary that he didn’t note and couldn’t account for or fix right away.

Ashton asks about the witnesses work with Dr. Vass. At the lab all the scientists work together and learn from each other and work outside of their specialties. Vass has worked on many of the projects this witness has done, and this witness has worked on Dr. Vass’s projects.

Baez gets back up for re-direct – Baez asks if this witness has worked on the Labrador. This witness is a co-inventor but not really a beneficiary. The witness says that all scientists are required to report inventions. Only a minimal royalty is received, if the patent is licensed to any non government entities.

Baez asks about the connection between the Labrador project, the money, and this case. The doctor really smacks Baez down by pointing out that the people who are going to buy the Labrador are first responders, they aren’t going to give a rat’s ass if the Labrador is mentioned in a court of law. And Labrador was not used in this case whatsoever. There is not a relationship between this case and Labrador.

Baez is done. (for now)

Ashton asks about the Labrador and if it was built for the military. Wise says it was. He doesn’t get money if the government uses it – so no royalties would be coming to him.

Then Baez has one more question about the Labrador and the royalties. If the government uses it, they don’t pay royalties. But If Law Enforcement buys it – he might. He doesn’t know.

Finally the witness is excused. The lawyers better behave and stop the delays. I can’t stand too many more of these long ass days. We’re already working all day Saturday.

But you have to wonder when, exactly, Casey told Baez this “real truth” and what precipitated her telling him all this. When did Baez find out about the “Cindy left the ladder on the pool” thing – and which came first? Casey’s story of accidental drowning, or Baez’s discovery of the ”ladder” incident. And who initially offered the drowning scenario? Was it Baez or Casey? This might affect whether or not Casey testifies. Baez can’t suborn perjury. He can not put Casey on the stand and allow her to lie about any material fact. If he knows that she is lying, he can face severe penalties – he could be disbarred – even jailed.

So what Baez knew, when he knew it, and what he believes to be true, may all be important. And even more importantly what we can assume that he’s creating out of whole cloth to fit “facts” and “coincidences” in the testimony of others may point out where facts end and fiction begins.

But, it’s another Monday morning in the trial, and as is usually the case, the defense has a delay. The judge reminds the attorney’s that when they have issues, they need to inform the court officer at 8:20 that they have these issues, so we are not wasting the jury’s time and postponing the beginning of the court day.

But for this morning, we start with a sidebar.

And when we get back to open court, Ashton is immediately at the lectern, reminding the judge that he had left the option of a sanction package with the witness William Rodriguez, open for later consideration. Ashton tells the judge that the state did depose the witness on Saturday, and Ashton has just received a transcript of that deposition. He has only briefly read the transcript, and he would like to have the opportunity to read it again before cross examination, so he would like the defense to postpone calling the witness.

There is one particular area that the witness proposes to give testimony on that Ashton does not believe the witness is qualified to give testimony on. This witness believes that “other people” cannot distinguish the smell of human decomposition from other odors. This is just a personal opinion of his, Ashton believes, because the witness cannot cite studies that would back up this statement. Ashton would like to have a hearing on this issue.

Ashton says he also has an issue with another defense witness – Dr. Richard Eikelenboom. Ashton says he doesn’t want to argue sanctions right now, but he wants the court to know it’s coming. Ashton says that he received a ½ page report from this witness, and this report contained absolutely no opinions whatsoever. Eikelenboom showed up Friday at the courthouse, which prompted the State to ask the defense why this witness was there, since the submitted report had contained no opinions or conclusions. Eikelenboom also showed up at Ashton’s office on Sunday afternoon for a potential deposition – Ashton sent hm away, since he could not depose the witness without a report that listed conclusions or opinions regarding this case. Yesterday Ashton received a 2 page report and a 45 slide PowerPoint Presentation from the defense counsel.

Ashton provides the court with the 2 page report and the Power Point presentation and says that he is willing to depose Mr. Eikelenboom Tuesday evening, and do what he can, and he will be preparing a sanctions package for the court, since this is, in his opinion, another deliberate violation of the court order.

Dr Eikelenboom states his specialty as “Trace DNA Evidence” He is prepared to give his opinion on negative DNA evidence. Ashton says he is not prepared at this time to argue the Doctor’s opinions or qualifications, since he has not deposed the witness yet, but he will be ready to do so after he does depose the witness Tuesday evening, should the defense produce him.

Baez gets up to respond to Ashton’s request of the court – to delay both Rodriguez and Eikelenboom.

Baez says that the prosecution has the right to depose the defense’s witnesses – and these two witnesses were both listed timely within witness lists submitted to the court and they both provided reports under time constraints. Baez told both witnesses to put together something as quickly as possible in order to comply with the courts order.

Baez says that the court’s order specifically stated that the witnesses could not testify to anything that was not first disclosed in either written reports OR depositions. Baez accuses the state of intentionally limiting the defense’s witnesses ability to testify by not conducting depositions. Baez says that it is n intentional act because Ashton has had sufficient time to co-ordinate these witnesses, set them for depositions, and conduct those depositions.

Baez says that he could put together the same sanctions package for the state since they have violated the courts order, too, one with Dr. Rickenbach, when an objection was sustained after the state tried to elicit testimony that was not earlier disclosed; and then also with the late disclosure of photographs on the morning of trial. In both of these cases the issue was addressed, and we moved on. There were no sanction packages or threats of contempt.

Baez says that the court has made it clear that this is not a game. And that gamesmanship has been exercised by both sides. Baez says that he feels this is a complete exercise of gamesmanship, yet again, byt the state. And this has been carried out by Mr. Ashton since the very beginning. Baez says that Ashton is a skilled and experienced prosecutor that knows that he should take depositions from expert witnesses. Baez says he would venture to guess that Ashton has never been involved in a trial that had expert witnesses that he hadn’t first deposed – but in this case, he was armed with a court order that he could play games with and use as a sword as well as a shield by ignoring and avoiding his responsibility as a prosecutor by not conducting depositions.

Baez continues – As it pertains to Dr. Rodriguez, the remedy for the court is to give the state time to take his deposition – these things happen all the time – and these are really minor issues. The duct tape opinion that Dr. Rodriguez is going to express is that there is no scientific basis to render an pinion as to where a piece of duct tape is on a surface deposit site. There are too many things that can alter the location of this duct tape. Aside from being common sense, this is being testified to by someone with the experience to do so.

With regards to Mr. Eikelenboom, because of the failure of the state to take his deposition and discover what he might be able to testify to…One of the original issues that the defense wanted him to testify about was DNA – low copy number DNA, all of which was furnished to the state, not only in pleadings to the court, but this is a common issue that the state is on notice of. Their claim and argument is that the reason there is no DNA on these items is because of the elements, knowing full well that DNA degrades, and that there still should be DNA on these items. And someone could potentially testify to that.

Baez says that some of the issues that came up with this case have come up recently. Baez reminds that court that on Saturday he made everyone aware that he would be exercising conducting depositions on all witnesses for which the state had failed to do so.

Baez says he asked Mr. Eikelenboom to go to the prosecutors office on Saturday afternoon for a deposition. He did, and he was turned away. Specifically by Mr. Ashton. Not a secretary, not an associate – Mr. Ashton himself told him to go away.

Baez then told Mr. Eikelenboom to prepare a report immediately, which he did. And Baez says that he immediately forwarded this report to Mr. Ashton, along with any demonstrative aids that Eikelenboom might use in his testimony.

All of this is merely information that explains DNA and it’s processes. Ashton would need very little preparation for this material.

Baez says that Ashton’s wanting more time to review depositions is not a very good argument, since Ashton had 7 or 8 months to take depositions and review them and chose not to. To delay now for his failure to act in the past is not a good argument and a delay of the process.

Baez says the judge’s order was fairly clear – and e reads it to include two aspects of the discovery process – reports and depositions. Ashton failed to take depositions. Baez says that he told the court this in a status hearing, and said then that this might be a problem later.

Baez says that he did not intentionally disobey the court’s order. He says that he has labored n this cause daily and nightly. Baez says that the law does not compel them to submit written reports from witnesses, but he knows that this is the courts order, and he has tried to comply. But the way the state is failing to complete depositions allows the state to limit the defense’s due process – the state is using the order as a sword and a shield. And now to bring sanctions against the defense because the state failed to follow it’s own regular standard operating procedure? Baez accuses Ashton of failing to take depositions in an effort to take Casey Anthony’s life – and go after her lawyer, too.

When Baez is through, the judge asks both lawyers to turn around and look at the clock and tell him what time it is. Ashton says it is 9:25. Baez says it is 9:26. The judge says that this tells him that the two attorneys will never agree on anything, and will never interpret anything in the same way.

The judge says that the jury has been sitting back there for more than 25 minutes. The judge orders that henceforth and forevermore, the attorneys are required to be in court at 8:30. So if they have any matters to take up, they will take them up then. At 9:00 court will start. And we will not have….this. On Saturday, they will work a full day. (the bastards). The judge tells the defense to have witnesses assailable for a full day Saturday.

The judge says that there are specific rules regarding discovery, but that the court has much leeway to expand, limit or restrict discovery as it sees fit, and set timelines and deadlines as necessary.

The judge reads it’s order from December 2010, a response to a state pleading. The court order sets out that all expert witnesses would supply their CV, their area of expertise, their opinions and the areas on which they would render those opinions.

The judge says he thought that this would settles the matter – but here we go again.

In January, 2011, the court issued another order – in response to another state’s motion to compel, again there was a lacking in understanding of what the court had required. This order explained further that all expert witnesses, in this case Dr. Henry Lee, would be required to submit a complete statement of opinions that he witness would express, and the reason for those opinions.

The judge then addressees the attorneys, saying that in those two written orders from the court, the court was very clear that both the state and the defense would be required to have all of their expert witnesses submit statements concerning all opinions they would testify to, and the reasons for those opinions.

The judge says that depositions are only to expound upon opinions and statements expressed. The judge says that the depositional process was not to be used as an alleviation of the responsibility to submit reports. This was never the court’s intent. The judge says that this court does not make threats – it simply follows the rules. When the state wanted to use a demonstrative exhibit that had not been disclosed to the defense, the court precluded the state from using that exhibit.

The judge says that case law frown upon excluding evidence in cases of discovery violations – so as to not unduly punish the defendant. But the Florida Supreme Court left the door open in cases where “someone” repeatedly violates court orders as the final ultimate sanction. There has never been a case where that final and ultimate sanction has been imposed and upheld by a court that the judge knows of, but one would surmise that if “someone” continuously violates a court order with impunity whether or not the court would be left powerless or if the Supreme Court would say “this is the case where the ultimate sanction was proper”.

The judge then acknowledges the friction and the gamesmanship between the attorneys – and he notes that this is something the Florida Bat will have to deal with. He says that at the conclusion of this trial, he will deal with the violations that might have occurred during it. It is not proper for the court to deal with it now.

The judge says that he will grant the state’s request to defer the testimony of Dr. Rodriguez. He says there will be a short day on Wednesday for his own personal reasons.

He suggests to both the state and the defense that they go through all their witnesses and make sure that their opinions are all disclosed in written reports.

The judge says that exclusion – even at the price of having to do it all over again – may be the proper remedy if it continues.

The judge then asks who will be the defense’s next witness – and they don’t have one. It will be 30 minutes until they pick up their next witness.

The judge says that he is thisclose to starting the court day at 8:30. He says he’s been accommodating to the work schedule, but he has a sequestered jury to think about. The judge says the unprofessionalism is going to stop or he will work them some fierce hours.

In 30 minutes they come back – only to find out that through a joint stipulation between the state and the defense, they will be n recess until 9:00 tomorrow morning.

The judge does not look happy.